HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-06-28FINAL
7:00 P.M.
June 28, 1995
Room 241, County Office Building
1) Call to Order.
2) Pledge of Allegiance.
3) Moment of Silence.
4) Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC.
5) Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
6) Appeal: SDP-94-067. Virginia Oil Minor Site Plan Amendment. Proposal
to locate a ~1150 sq ft car wash bldg on approx 1.25 ac znd PD-MC &
EC. Property on SE corner of Rolkin Court and Rt 250 E inters.
TM78,P73A. Rivanna Dist.
7) ZMA-95-02. H & H Partnership. Public Hearing on a request to rezone
approx 1.88 acs from R-2 to MC. Property in SW corner of Rt 631/I-
64 inters. TM76,P55B. Site recommended for Community Service in
Neighborhood 5 in Comprehensive Plan. Scottsville Dist.
8) ZMA-95-03. H & H Partnership. Public Hearing on a reques~ to rezone
approx 2.163 acs from R-2 uo HO. Properuy in SW corner of Rt 631/I-
64 inters. TM76,P55D. Site recommended for Community Service in
Neighborhood 5 in Comprehensive Plan. Scottsville Dist.
9} ZTA-95-02. University Real Estate Foundation. Public Hearing on a
request to amend the Zoning Ordinance in Sections 29.2.5 and 29.2.6
~o create a Category III with by-right & special use permit uses in
the Planned Development-Industrial Park (PD-IP) category.
10) SP-95-06. Robert Couch, Jr. Public Hearing on a request to permit
expansion of existing antique shop & outdoor display of m~rchandise
on approx 1.2 ac zoned RA & HC located on N sd of Rt 250E approx 0.5
mi E of entrance to Glenmore dvlp. TM79A1,Sec C,P'sl0&ll. Rivanna
Dist.
11} SP-95-07. Institute of Textile Technology. Public Hearing on a requesc
for school of special instruction on approx 12.5 ac zoned CO & EC
located on Rt 250W. Property is sits of ITT. TM60,P28, Samuel
Miller Dist.
12) SP-95-12. Keswick Corporation & Laura Yergan. Public Hearing on a
request for division of land as provided in Sec 10.5 to allow 30
more lots than the total number permitted under Sec 10.3.1 and Sec
10.3.2 on approx 535 acs zoned R~ & EC Overlay Dist. Development
shall be in accord with proposal plan. Property is location of the
Keswick Country Club development~ TM80,PsS,SC, SC1,SD2,SD3,SD6,SJ,
8Z,21A, 27,29,31,41,41A,43,60,60A, 61,61A1,62,69,70,70A,90,93,94,95,
96,97,98,100,106,109A & TM94,P42A. Rivanna Dist.
13) Discussion: Jefferson-Madison Regional Library FY 1995-96 Budget
Request.
14) Approval of Minutes: April 7, 1993; December 14, 1994; March 1 and
May 10, 1995.
15) Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
16) Adjourn.
CONSENT A~ENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
5.1 Authorize Chairman To sign service agreement with Crozet Volunteer Fire
Department, Inc., advancing $95,000 uo purchase a new pumper.
5.2
Appropriations:
a) Summer School Pro,am and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
Grant - $7~414.08, (Form #940070).
b) Circuit Court - $5710, (Form#S40071).
c) CFW, Inc., Royalty Payment - $5541, (Form #940072).
d) Educational Technology Grant - $583,127, (Frm #950001).
FOR INFORMATION:
5.3
Copy of letter dated June 15, 1995, from C. Richard Cranwell, Cranwell &
Moore, uo W. Clyde Gouldman, II, City Attorney, and copy of letter dated
June 20, 1995, from W. Clyde Gouldman, II, City Attorney, to C. Richard
Cranwell, Cranwell & Moore, re: ~own reversion.
5.4 Copy of Albemarle County Service Authority's operating budget for fiscal
year beginning July 1, 1995.
5.5 Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service
Authority for April 20, 1995.
5.6 Cop~es of Planning Commission minutes for May 23, June 6 and June 13,
1995.
David P. Bowerman
Charlotte Y, HumDhris
Forrest R. Marshall. Jr.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclnfire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S Martin
Walter F Perkins
Sally H. Thomas
MEMORANDUM
TO: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Planning & Community Development
FROM: Ella W. Carey, Clerk~~-~
DATE: June 29, 1995
SUBJECT: Board Actions of June 28, 1995
The following is a list of actions taken by the Board of Supervisors at
its meeting on June 28, 1995:
Agenda Item NO. 1. Call to Order. Called to order at 7:05 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
pUBLIC.
Mr. Charles Hatstead, repres~_nting the Montesori Community Schoolj
requested the Board to accelerate the site plan amendment process with the
planning department in preparation of a modular classroom for the fall season.
He also requested that ZMA-82-3, Dennis Ownby and Charles Kincannon limited
expansion to entrance facilities, be rescinded. A~thorize staff to advertise
the Montesori Community School's request for August 2, 1995.
Agenda Item No. 5.1. Authorize Chairman to sign service agreemen5 with
Crozet Volunteer Fire Department, I~c., advancing $95,000 to purchase a new
pumper. Approved as presented. Copy forwarded to Finance (copy attached).
Agenda Item No. 5.2a. Summer School Program and National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics Grant - $7414.08, (Form ~940070). Approved as
presented. Original forwarded to Finance (copy attached).
Agenda Item No. 5.2b. Circuit Court - $5710, (Form #940071). Approved
as presented. Original forwarded to Finance (copy attached).
Agenda Item No. 5.2c. CFW,
#940072). Approved as presented.
attached).
Inc.. Royalty Payment - $5541, (Form
Original forwarded to Finance (copy
Printed on recycled paper
To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Date: June 29, 1995
Page: 2
Agenda Item No. 5.2d. Educational Technology Grant - $583,127,
~950001)~ Approved as presented. Original forwarded to Finance (copy
attached).
(Form
Agenda Item No. 5.3. Copy of letter dated June 15, 1995, from C.
Richard Cranwell, Cranwell & Moore, to W. Clyde Gouldman, II, City Attorney,
and copy of letter dated June 20, 1995, from W. Clyde Gouldman, II, City
Attorney, to C. Richard Cranwell, Cranwell & Moore, re: town reversion.
Mrs. Thomas asked that a joint meeting be scheduled, as soon as possi-
bls, with the Board and City Council to discuss town reversion and its
implications on the corm%unity. She asked what paperwork needed uo be done
before such a meeting could take place. Mr. Tucker said that council is
supposed to meet, possibly this week, on this issue and to discuss some of the
material in Mr. Gouldman's letter. He said City staff is preparing various
documents for review, but he has not seen anything as yet.
Agenda Item No~ 6. Appeal: SDP-94-067. Virginia Oil Minor Site Plan
Amendment. Proposal to locate a ±1150 sq ft car wash bldg on approx 1.25 ac
znd PD-MC & EC. Property on SE corner of Rolkin Court and Rt 250 E inters.
TM78,P73A. Rivanna Dist. Deferred, with applicant's consent, to July 19,
1995, to work out an agreeable compromise. Planning, Engineering, Legal,
Virginia Land Corporation, Virginia Department of Transportation and the
applicant will work together.
Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-95-02. B & H Partnership. Public Hearing on'a
request to rezone approx 1.88 acs from R-2 to HC. Property in SW corner of Rt
631/I-64 inters. TM76.P55B. Site recommended for Community Service in
Neighborhood 5 in Comprehensive Plan. Scottsville Dist. Deferred to July 12,
1995, per applicant's request.
Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-95-03. E & H Partnership. Public Hearing on a
request to rezone approx 2.163 acs from R-2 to HC Property in SW corner of
Rt 631/I-64 inters. TM76,P55D. Site recommended for Community Service in
Neighborhood 5 in Comprehensive Plan. Scottsville Dist. Deferred to July 12,
1995, per applicant's request.
Agenda Item No. 9. ZTA-95-02. University Real Estate Foundation.
Public Hearing on a request to amend the Zoning Ordinance in Sections 29.2.5
and 29.2.6 to create a Category III with by-right & special use permit uses in
the Planned Development-Industrial Park (PD-IP) category. Adopted Ordinance
(COpy attached). Copy o~ zoning ordinance sheets will follow under separate
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-95-06. Robert Couch, Jr. Public Hearing on a
request to permit expansion of existing antique shop & outdoor display of
merchandise on approx 1.2 ac zoned RA & EC located on N sd of Rt 250E approx
0.5 mi E of entrance to Glenmore dvlp. TM79A1, Sec C,P'sl0&ll. Rivanna Dist.
Approved as recommended by the Plannlng Co~anission subject to the followring
four conditions plus the addition of 4c, which states that parking should be
no closer than it currently exists:
1. Approval is for an expansion not to exceed: a second story to the
existing building the floor area of which shall nou exceed the
TO: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Date: June 29, 1995
Page: 3
floor area of the existing building; and a storage building not to
exceed 1664 square feet in total floor space;
Either the storage building or second floor expansions as described
in #1 above shall comply with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.4 or
this approval shall be deemed null and void;
Upon satisfaction of #2, above, the applicant shall have not more
than five years from date of approval of this petition to complete
construction of all expansion granted herein;
4. Staff approval of sketch plan drawn to scale of 1" = 20' including
but no5 limited to:
a. Area for back-up drainfield as approved by the Virginia Depart-
ment of Health;
Paving of entrance from U.S. Route 2S0 to parking area and
upgrading entrance to current Virginia Department of Transporta-
tion geometric standards;
No parking expansion shall occur closer to U.S. Route 250 than
currently exists.
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-95-07. Institute of Textile Technology. Public
Hearing on a request for school of special instruction on approx 12.5 ac zoned
CO & EC located on Rt 250W. Property is site of ITT. TM60,P28. Samuel
Miller Dist. Approved as ~eco~nended by the Planning Conunission subject to
the following condition.
1. Enrollment is limited to 40 students.
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-95-12. Keswick Corporation & Laura Yergan.
Public Hearing on a request for division of land as provided in Sec 10.5 to
allow 30 more lots than the total number permitted under Sec 10.3.1 and Sec
10.3.2 on approx 535 acs zoned RA & EC Overlay Dist. Development shall be in
accord with proposal plan. Property is location of the Keswick Country Club
development. TM80,Ps8,8C,SC1, SD2,SD3,8D4,SJ, SZ,21A,27,29,31,41,4-
1A,43,60,60A~61,61A1,62,69,70,70A,90,93,94,95,96,97,98,100,106,109A &
TM94,P42A. Rivarma Dist. Approved subject to the following five conditions:
Development of this subdivision shall be in general accordance with
the Keswick Estate Application Plan dated November 28, 1994, and
revised April 3, 1995, and May 1, 1995;
Flood plain crossings to allow private road construction in accor-
dance with SP-92-059;
3. Water Resources Manager approval of a water quality impact assess-
ment;
4. Compliance with State Corporation Commission requirements for water
and sewer utility services;
In the review of future plats and plans, provisions shall be made
for protection of streams valley areas located on proposed lots by
the conveyance of additional open space and/or resource protection
To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Date: June 29, 1995
Page: 4
easements to the homeowners association or other entity agreeable to
the developer end the County for purposes of permanent protection of
these areas.
Agenda Item No. 13. Discussion: Jefferson-Madison Regional Library FY
1995-96 Budget Request. Approved an additional $24,289 for the library,s FY
1995-96 budget to fully staff the Northside Library.
Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Tucker said he declared the county as a local emergency area, due to
the flooding at Sugar Hollow and White Hall, and by this declaration, the
County will be able to obtain federal disaster relief funds as well as being
able to call on the National Guard and others to aid the County in a disaster
event. Resolution attached.
Mr. Martin said that Governor Allen has closed state offices on July 3,
1995. In addition to the state offices being closed, other localities that
will be closed include Culpeper, Madison, Lousia, Orange, Fluvanna,
Buckingham, Nelson, Augusta, Rockingham and Goochland. Approved Albemarle
County close its offices On July 3, 199S.
Mrs. Thomas asked that Mr. Tucker write a letter, for the Chairman's
signature, similar to the letter being drafted by the Rivanna Solid Waste
Authority to our congressional delegation regarding the Waste Stream Flow
Control legislation about to be adopted by Congress. She said this legisla-
tion would not require that County trash haulers use a certain facility.
There is movement toward alternative methods of trash disposal, outside of the
Ivy Landfill, that the County may choose in the future, However, whatever
alternative may he chosen, the system must allow for the County to pay off the
debt. She said Congress is considering a law that would not allow the County
any kind of control over the County's own solid waste stream. This would make
it difficult for the County to choose a more intelligent way of trash dispos-
al.
Mrs. Humphris mentioned the letter from Mr. Basil Hatlquist to R.E. Lee
and Son, Inc. regarding construction complaints from people traveling along
Old ~arth Road near the Gallison Hall project. She asked about the status and
the legality of what is being done. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Bobby Shaw is talking
to the people involved and will continue ~o work on this issue. He said what
has been done is within the context of the regulations.
Mrs. Humphris asked if Mr. Tucker responded to the League of Women
Voter's letter about the PACC and other issues. Mr. Tucker said ns. The PACC
Executive Committee has directed staff to work on the issues, end to return
information to them for a reply at a later time.
Mrs. Humphris asked about the Graemont Homeowner Association's request
to resurface the road. Mr. Tucker said he believed he drafted a letter to
this request.
Mrs. Humphris asked when the Board was going to discuss the problems at
the Foxfield Races, as stated in Mr. Joseph White's May 12, 1995 letter. She
suggested staff present an update regarding the situation in July.
To: Robert Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Date: June 29, 1995
Page: 5
The meeting a~journed at 9:54 p.m. to July 5, 1995 at 9:00 a.m.
EWC/tpf
Attachments (7)
cc: Richard E. Huff
Roxanne White
Jo Higgins
Amelia McCulley
Bruce Woodzell
Larry Davis
Carl Pumphrey
File
,THIS SERVICE AGRI~MENT, made this
and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
,f. ~'/'h day of ,~J6o~---- ,1995, by
VIRGINIA (the "County") and the CROZET
VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, INC. ("Crozet");
WITNESSETH:
Background: (A) The County previously has entered into a service agreement with Crozet,
dated April 12, 1995, providing for the withholding of certain sums each year by the County from the
County's annual grant to Crozet, as set forth in said agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto
as Exhibit 34 and
(B) As a result of said agreement, the outstanding indebtedness now totals Three Hundred
Forty-Three Thousand Six Hundred Dollars ($343,600.00); and
(C) Crozet now desires to receive from the County an additional Ninety-Five Thousand
Dollars ($95,000.00), to be used for the final payment on the new pumper. The downpayment for
the new pumper was made with the money received fi.om the service agreement dated April 12, 1995,
and
(D) Crozet also desires to enter into an agreement consolidating its annual withholdings of
payment by the County;
NOW, T~.REFORE, for and in consideration of the operation by Crozet of a volunteer fire
company which will fight fires and protect property and human life from loss or damage by fire during
the term of this agreement, the County shall pay to Crozet Ninety-Five Thousand Dollars
($95,000.00), which payment shall be made from the fire fund to be paid after execution of this
agreement.
The sum of Forty-Two Thousand Nine Hundred Fif[y Dollars ($42,950.00) shall be withheld
from the County's annual grant to Crozet for a period of eight (8) years beginning with fiscal year
1995-96 and ending in fiscal year 2002-03. Thus, at the end of the eighth year, which is the term of
this service agreement, a total of Three Hundred Forty-Three Thousand Six Hundred Dollars
($343,600.00) will have been withheld. This withholding consolidates the bala~nce of all prior
advancements as a result of the prior service agreements with Crozet dated Februa~ 22, 1985, June
11, 1986, May 11, 1990, and April t2, 1995.
If at any time during the term of this agreement, Crozet is no longer in the business of
providing fire-fighting services or the pumper is no longer used for fire-fighting purposes, Crozet
covenants that it will convey its interest in the pumper to the County at no cost to the County so long
as the County or its assigns will use the pumper for fire-fighting purposes. Crozet further covenants
that it shall not convey the pumper or any interest therein to any party other than the County without
the County's prior written consent during the term of this agreement. A copy of the title to the
pumper shall be delivered to the County within 60 days of the purchase of the new pumper. All
covenants set forth in prior agreements not in conflict with this agreement remain in full force and
WITNESS the following Mgnatures and seals:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By (/(f~ ~..~ (Seal)
Walter F. Perkins, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
CROZET VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, INC..
STATE OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ ~ day of ~ , 1995
by Walter F. Perkins, Chairman, Board Of Superyisors of Albemarle County, Virgi[fia.
My Commission Expires: 5ff.,~t- {.(.~c.~ ~.~
Xf~{.~-~ .~c go, [ ¢ ~ 7 Notary Public
/
STATE OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
%~The forego',~ inslo~ent was acknowledged !~.o. re me this ~ day o~, 1995
by ~..)~,01 b }-~. [R-AoV~ / ~$, ~ , CroZet Volunteer
My Co~ssion E~ires: ~~ ~W ~
~ No~ Pubic
3
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEi~R
95/96
NUMBER
950001
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES
NO
X
FUND
SCHOOL CAPITAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
STATE FUNDING FOR THE PURCHASE OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY EQUIPMENT.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1900061101800703 MEDICA CENTER/LIBRARY COMPUTERIZATION $353,127.00
1900061101800704 SCHOOL NETWORKING 230~000.00
TOTAL $583,127.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2900024000240265 EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY GRANT $583~127.00
TOTAL $583,127.00
EDUCATION
SIGNATURE
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
DATE
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR 94/95
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
FUND
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
AUTHORIZATION TO EXPEND CFW,
EXPENDITURE
NUMBER
ADDITIONAL
TPJ~NSFER
NEW
YES
NO X
SCHOOL
INC ROYALTY PAYMENT.
940072
X
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1241062120800100 MAChINERY/EQUIPMENT,NEW $5,541.00
TOTAL $5,541.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2200015000150510 CFW ROYALTY PAYMENT $5,541.00
TOTAL S5,541.00
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINA~CE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
EDUCATION
SIGNATURE
DATE
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR
94/95 NI/MBER 940071
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION~
ADDITONAL FUNDING FOR CIRCUIT COURT.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1100021010110000 SALARIES-REGULAR $4,800.00
1100021010160900 SALARY RESERVE-BONUS 110.00
1100021010210000 FICA 380.00
1100021010221000 %fRS 420.00
1100095000999990 BOARD CONTINGENCY
(5,710.00)
TOTAL $0.00
REVE~u~ DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
$o.oo
TOTAL $0.00
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CIRCUIT COURT
SIGNATURE
DATE
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR 94/95 NUMBER 940070
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND SUMMER SCHOOL/GP~ANTS
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM AND NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF
MATHEMATICS GRANTD
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1331061120601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES $1,981.65
1331061125601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES 3,433.59
1310460212601300 INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPLIES
1,998.84
TOTAL $7,414.08
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2331051000510100 FI/ND BAI~kNCE $5,~15.24
2310418120181210 MATHEMATICS GRkNT 1,998.84
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS-
TOTAL $7,414.08
EDUCATION
SIGNATURE
DATE
ORDINANCE NO. 95-20(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMENDAND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING, ARTICLE III,
DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that Chapter 20, Zoning, Article III; District
Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained by amending section
29.2.2, By Special Use Permit, Category I, as follows:
29.0
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - INDUSTRIAL PARK - PD-IP
29.2
PERMITTED USES
29.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT - CATEGORY I
The following uses shall be permitted only by special use
permit provided that no separate application shall be
required for any use included on the approved application
plan;
Uses permitted by special use permit in the LI
Light Industry district;
Hotels, motels, inns (reference 9.4.2).
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing
is a true, correct copy of an ordinance adopted by the Board of
County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at an adjourned
meeting held on June 28, 1995.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Albemarle County has had unceasing and relentless
rains for the month of June, 1995; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County does
hereby find that:
Due to the heavy rain, Albemarle County is fa~ing
dangerous flood conditions;
Due to the floods, a condition of extreme peril of life
and property necessitates the proclamation of the
existence of an emergency;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE ALBERMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS
HEREBY PROCLAIMS that an emergency now exists throughout the
County; and
IT IS FURTHER PROCLAIMED AND ORDERED that during the exis-
tence of said emergency the powers, function, and duties of the
Director of Emergency Services, and the emergency providers of
Albemarle County shall be those prescribed by state law and the
ordinances, resolutions, and approved plans of Albemarle County
in order to mitigate the effects of the emergency~
I Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing
writing is true, correct copy of a resolution adopted by the
Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at an
adjourned meeting held on June 28, 1995.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
E C IVESUMMARY
Service Agreement wi~Cmz~VohmteerFireDepaflme~,Inc.
gTAlq~
Messrs. Tucker, Hnff, Pumphrey
AC~ENDA DATE.'
June 28, 1995
ACTION: X
ATT i CBMI~3~T,q_-
R~VIEV~EI~
1NFORMATI'~N:
Yes
RACKGRfHqN~.
Several years ago Albemarle Comgy established a revolving fund to be used by the ten vohmteer fire and rescue companies in the County.
This fund, currently funded at two millh)n doRal's, provides the volunteer companies a means of acquiring needed fire-fighting eqnipme~
and lmildin~, interest free, with repaymcuts being deducted from their annual County appropriation. Requests for disbursements from the
fund are monitored and approved by the leffersun Country Fire and Rescue Association (JCFRA).
DIgC. ll.qglON:
The currem amou~ awl!able for toanin tl~ revolving fund is $101.838.63. Crozet Volunteer Fke Department, Inc. has requested, through
ICFRA, an advance of $95,000 to be used for the final payment on a new ~ truck. The downpayment for the truck was made with
money received from the service agreement dated April 12, 1995. This advance will be paid upon request at~er the execution of this
agreement. Repayment of the loan wilt be over an eight year period beginning FY 95/96.
JCFRA has approved this request.
Staff reeonmaends authorizing the Chairman to execute the service agreement.
CROZET1.EXE
95.101
,THIS SERVICE AGKEEMENT, madethis ~.~n dayof ,,Jc,.~_o - ,1995, by
and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMAKLE, VIKGINIA (the "County") and the CROZET
VOLUNTEER FI~. DEPARTMENT, INC. ("Crozet");
WlTNES SETH:
Background: (A) The County previously has entered into a service agreement with Crozet,
dated April 12, 1995, providing for the withholding of certain sums each year by the County from the
County's annual grant to Crozet, as set forth in said agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto
as Exhibit A, and
(B) As a result of said agreement, the outstanding indebtedness now totals Three Hundred
Forty-Three Thousand Six Hundred Dollars ($343,600.00); and
(C) Crozet now desires to receive from the County an additional lq'mety-Five Thousand
Dollars ($95,000.00), to be used for the final payment on the new pumper. The downpayment for
the new pumper was made with the money received from the service agreement dated April 12, 1995,
and
(D) Crozet also deskes to enter into an agreement consolidating its annual withholdings of
payment by the County;
Now, TI-mREFOKE, for and in consideration of the operation by Crozet of a volunteer fire
company which will fight fires and protect property and human life from loss or damage by fire during
the term of this agreement, the County shall pay to Crozet Ninety-Five Thousand Dollars
($95,000.00), which payment shall be made from the fire fund to be paid after execution of this
agreement.
The sum of Forty-Two Thousand 1,rme Hundred Fifty Dollars ($42,950.00) shall be withheld
from the County's annual grant to Crozet for a period of eight (8) years beginning with fiscal year
1995-96 and ending in fiscal year 2002-03. Thus, at the end of the eighth year, which is the term of
this service agreement, a total of Three Hundred Forty-Three Thousand Six Hund.red Dollars
($343,600.00) will have been withheld. This withholding consolidates the balance of all prior
advancements as a result of the prior service agreements with Crozet dated February 22, I985, June
11, 1986, May I1, 1990, and April 12, 1995.
If at any time during the term of this agreement, Crozet is no longer in the bus'mess of
providing fire-tighting services or the pumper is no longer used for tiro-fighting purposes, Crozet
covenants that it will convey its interest in the pumper to the County at no cost to the County so long
as the County or its assigns w~ use the pumper for tiro-fighting purposes. Crozet further covenant,,
that it shall not convey the pumper or any interest therein to any party other than the County witho~
the County's prior written consent during the term of this agreement. 3, copy of the title to'
pumper shall be delivered to the County within 60 days of the purchase of the new pumper.
covenants set forth in prior agreements not in conflict with this agreement remain in full forc,
effect
WITNESS the following signatures and seals:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
Walter F. Perkins, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
CROZET VOLUNTEER FlllE DEPAKTMEN?
(Se
Exhibit A.
THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT, made for the purpose of identification
this /~_~ day of ~/4/~' ,1995, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA (the "County") and the CROZET VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENt, INC.
CCrozet");
WITNES SETH:
Background: (A) The County previously has entered into a service agreement with Crozet,
dated May 11, 1990, providing for the withholding of certain sums each year by the County i~om the
County's annual grant to Crozet, as set forth in said agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto
as Exhibit A; and
(B) As a result of said agreement, the outstanding indebtedness now totals One Hundred
Eighteen Thousand Six Hundred Dollars ($118,600.00); and
(C) Crozet now desires to receive fi.om the County an additional One Hundred Tl~ty
Thousand Dollars ($130,000.00) to be used for a new pumper; and
(D) Crozet also desires to enter into an agreement consolidating its annual withholdings of
payment by the County;
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the operation by Crozet of a volunteer fire
company which will fight fires and protect property and human life fi.om loss or damage by fire during
the term of this agreement, the County shall pay to Crozet One I-Iundred Thirty Thousand Dollars
($130,000.00), which payment shall be made fi.om the fire fund to be paid after execution of this
agreement.
The sum of Thirty-One Thousand and Seventy-Five Dollars ($31,075.00) shall be withheld
fi.om the County's annual grant to Crozet for a period of eight (8) years beginning with fiscal year
1995-96 and ending in fiscal year 2002-03. Thus, at the end of the eighth year, winch is the term of
this service agreement, a total of Two Hundred Forty-Eight Thousand Six Hundred Dollars
($248,600.00) will have been withheld. This withholding consolidates the balance of all prior
advancements as a remit of the prior service agreements with Crozet dated February 22, 1985, June
11, 1986, andMay 11, 1990.
If at any time during the term of this agreement, Crozet is no longer in the business of
providing fire-fighting services or the pumper is no longer used for fire-fighting purposes, Crozet
covenants that it will convey its interest in the pumper to the County at no cost to the County so long
as the County or its assigns will use the pumper for fire-fighting purposes. Crozet further covenants
that it shall not convey the pumper or any interest therein to any party other than the County without
the County's prior written consent during the term of tins agreement. A copy of the title to the
pumper shall be delivered to the County within 60 days of the purchase of the new pumper. All
covenants set forth in prior agreements not in conflict with this agreement remain in full force and
effect.
WITNESS the folio ,wing. signatures and seals:
Walter Ir. Perkins, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
CROZET VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPAR'iIVIENT, INC..
STATE OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF ~T_,B~T.~
The foregoing instmment was acknowledged before me this /~ dayof ~,~' ,
by Waiter F. Perldns, Chairman, Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgini/t.
My Commission Expires: //,(Q r~, ~(jd~,~f~-~c~ ~/~z~&
~ Notary Public Y
1995
STATE OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Fire Department, Inc.
My Commission Expires:
0
T~q e foregoing instmment was acknowledged befor~ me this c_~ dayof7)%~ ,1995
/~!~A, ~ )~,~ , ~'~;/~ , CrozetVolunteer
~A/i~' .~ ~ ~., ~/,'~n.~.~~ No~-y Public
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5845 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles $..Martin
Walter F. Perkins
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT
Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance
Ella W. Carey, Clerk~
June 30, 1995
Board Actions of June 28, 1995
At its meeting on June 28, 1995, the Board of Supervisors took the
following actions:
Agenda Item No. 5.1. Authorize Chairman to sign service agreement
with Crozet Volunteer Fire Department, Inc., advancing $95,000 to purchase a
new pumper. Approved the attached service 'agreement.
Agenda Item No. 5.2a. Summer School Pro~ram and NationalCouncil of
Teachers of Mathematics Grant -$7,414.08, (Form #940070). Approved the
attached appropriation.
Agenda Item No. 5.2b. Circuit Court - $5,710, (Form #940071). Approved
the attached appropriation.
Agenda Item No. 5.2c. CFW, Inc~, Royalty Payment - $,5541~ (Form
#940072)o Approved the attached appropriation.
Agenda Item No~ 5.2d. Educational Technology Grant - $583,127, (Form
#95000~1). Approved the attached appropriation.
Agenda Item No. 13. Discussion: Jefferson-Madison Regional Library FY
1995-96 Budget Request. Approved an additional $24,289 for the llhrary's FY
1995-96 budget to fully staff the Northside Library.
EWC/tpf
Attachments (5)
Roxanne White
Carl pumphrey
Kevin Castner
Printed on recycled paper
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropr~fi~ - EAu~afion
AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSALfREOI~ ST:
Request approval of Appropriation #940070 in the amount of
$7,414.08 for (1) Summer School Program, (2) Nafiunal
Council of Teachers of Mathematics
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tm:la:r, Castner, Bre~dun & Me. Whit~
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACItMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
/
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
The School Board approved fl~ following roquast fo~ appropriations o~ Su~ 12, 1995 and request Board approval
DI,~CU~ION:
The zeap~un of tl~ remaining find balane~ for tl~ Sominex School Program. Th~ program had a fund balanc~ of $5415.24 at the end
of the 1993-94 fiscal ye, ar. The 9md~ will be used to defray costs associated withe the s~mmex programs.
TI~ appropriafi0~ of $ 1,998.84 for a grant nxeivcd from ~ Nalional Council of Teach, rs of Mathematics for Woodbrook Elemeata~ School.
Th~ gr~nt "Tmpl~i.,~g th~ NCTM Standm'ds in yom' Classroom" is designed to t4ndl e int. e~st in tl~ NCTM Stmxlar&, provide information
~d ~c, ourag~/nvotv~ment wi~ parents m~d students ia grades K-3.
RECOMMENDATION_:
8taffmoommeads approval of Appropriafion b'940070 in the amount of $7,414.08 as re~l~st~ and detailed on attachexl form
APP94007
95.104
2 3 I995
FISCAL YEAR
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
94/95 NUMBER
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
940070
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND SUMMER SCHOOL/GR3~NTS
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR sUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM AND NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF
MATHEMATICS GRANT.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1331061120601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES $1,981.65
133106~12560t300 ED/REC SUPPLIES 3~433.59
1310460212601300 INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPLIES 1~998~84
TOTAL $7,414.08
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2331051000510100 FUI~D BALANCE $5,415.24
2310418120181210 MATHEMATICS GR~_NT 1,998.84
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINi~NCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS~
TOTAL $7,414.08
************************************************************************
EDUCATION
SIGNATURE
DATE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OF[ ~-~?L~L{~-- ·~
AGENDA 'IIII~E:
Appropriation Cimuit Court
SUBJECTfPROPOSAL/REOUEST:
R~ciuest approval of Appropriation #940071 in the amount of
$5,710 for the Circuit Court.
~TAFF CONTACT:
Tncker. Breeden. White
AGENDA DATE:
Juue 28, 1995
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMYENTS:
REVIEIVED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
During the current fiscal year, the position of Legal Services Assistant in the Circuit Court's office was reclassified from a Grade 19 to a
Grade 21. Since sufficiont funds to cover the reclassification were not budgeted in the original budget appropriatated last June, this
additional appropriation is needed to avoid a shortfall at the end of the fiscal year. Additionally, the current Legal Services Assistant is
rethSng at the end of this month and Judge Peatross had requested that he be allowed to hire Ms. Easton's replacement beginning Jane 1st
in order to adequately train her during the transition in their one-person office.
DISCUSSION:
The appropriation request for $5,710 will cover the shortfall in salary and benefit costs for the mid-year reclassification, plus the additional
salary and benefits for one month for the rcplaecrmmt assistant.
RECOMMENDATION~
Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #940071 in the amoant of $5,710 for the Circuit Court's office.
95.102
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR 94/95 IfUMBER 940071
TYPE OFAPPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND GENER3tL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITONAL FUNDING FOR CIRCUIT COURT.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOtINT
1100021010110000 SALARIES-REGULAR $4,800.00
1100021010160900 SALARY RESERVE-BONUS 110.00
1100021010210000 FICA 380.00
1100021010221000 VRS 420.00
1100095000999990 BOARD CONTINGENCY
(5,710.00)
TOTAL $0.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
$o.oo
TOTAL $0.00
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CIRCUIT COURT
S I GNATURE
DATE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA 'fITLE:
Appropriation - Education
SUB,IECT/PROPOSAL/RE OUEST:
Request for approval of Appropriation #940072 in the amount
of $5,541.00 for CFW Royalty Payment.
STAFF CONTACT(S'~:
Messrs. Tucker, Casmer, Breeden, lvls. White
AGENDA DATE:
June 28, 1995
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
The School Board at ifs meeting of April 24, 1995 an appropriation request for use of the CFW royalty paymeat and requem the Board
approval.
BISCUSSION:
On September 9, 1991 an agreement was entered into between Albemarle County Schools and Charlottesville Quality Cable (now CFW Cable,
Inc.) for the lease of excess capacity on our hs~J_Cfional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) licenses. This agreement stipulated that in
consideration of the airtime provided by Albemarle County Schools, CFW Cable, Inc. agreed to pay a hourly royalty equal to $1.20 for each
subscriber to CFW's wireless cable service that received ~amming transmitted over the schools licensed frequency. As a result of this
agreement, CFW Cable, Inc. has forwarded the first royalty payment in the amount of $5,541.00.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Appropriafion #940072 ia tho amount of $5,541.00 as detailed on allaehed form
APP9772.WPD
95.106
FISCAL YEAR
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
94/95 A/UMBER
940072
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES
NO X
FUND SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
AUTHORIZATION TO EXPEND CFW, INC ROYALTY PAYMENT.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
124106212080¢100 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT-NEW $5,541.00
TOTAL $5,541.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2200015000150510 CFW ROYALTY PAYMENT $5,541~00
TOTAL $5,541.00
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
EDUCATION
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SIGNATURE
DATE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - Education
SUIN-ECT/PROI~OSAL/RE OUEST:
1~quest approval of Appropriation//950001 in the amount of
$583,127 for an Educational T~chnology Grant
STAFF CONTACT(SI:
Me. rs. Tucker, Castner, Breed~ 1~. Wh/te
AGENDA DATE:
Zone 28, 1995
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUNI):
The Schod Bo~d approved the following requ~ for appropriation on $on~ 12. 1995 and request Board approval.
~)ISCUSSION:
The appropriation of $583,127.00 fi'om the Departme~ o~'Edueafion for the purchase of educational technology equapmer~. The General
Assembty approved funding from the literary f~nd for these purchases. The fi,ua& are allocated for the purpose of school networking and
elementary school library media center technology improvements. This grant will provide for the completion of enmputer networks in all
s~hoois and for media center improvements related to technology enhancements. These funds will be eoord~ated with other CF technology
grinds snd the WAN system to provide overall integrated services. This funding will be provided on a grant basis for FY 1995-96 with a
required 20% local match. The local matnh is provided by funds already allocated to C]P technology expenditures.
RECO~:
Staff reer~me~h approval of Appropriation//950001 es requested and d~tailed on attach~ form.
APP95000
95.103
FISCAL YEAR 95/96
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
FUND
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
NLIMBER
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
YES
NO
SCHOOLCAPITAL
X
X
STATE FUNDING FOR THE PURCI-IASE OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY EQUIPMENT.
950001
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1900061101800703 MED!CA CENTER/LIBRARY COMPUTERIZATION $353,127~00
1900061101800704 SCHOOL NETWORKING 230,000.00
TOTAL $583,127.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2900024000240265 EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY GRANT $583,127.00
TOTAL
$583,127.00
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
EDUCATION
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
S I GNA TURE
DATE
CR~NBELL @ MOORE
TEL:l-705-544-7075
CRANWELL
(~.MooRE
June 15, 1995
3un 21 95 8:58 No.O0$ P.O1
W. Clyde Gouldmaa, II
City Attonrey
City Hall
P. O, Box 911
Charlottesville, VA 22902
De~M~.Go~dm~:
This letter is to inform you that our firm has been retained by Albemarle County
to represent its interest with respect to the much discussed reversion of the City of charlottesville
to town status.
As you know, the County and City have a long history of working together. It is
the feeling of the Board of Supervisors that there has becn way too much speculation on this
subject without any constructive dialogue between the Council and tho Board. The government
bodies are the decision makers. If Council is truly interested in reversion, the Board is ready,
willing and able to discuss the matter. This later is to mn. ow the Board's offer to ~t down with
Council a soon as possible to discuss this matter with the City.
I urge you to urge Council to act quickly to meet with tho Board. Frustration
b .recxl_ s litigation - conversation breeds negotiations.
Please let me hear from you' forthwith.
Sincerely,
C. Rich/~d' Cranwell
CRC/bm
CR~NBELL @ NOORE TEL:l-?03-$44-?O?3 Jun 21 ~5 8:58 No.O03 P.02
~;Ci~¥ OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Office of the City Attorney
City Hall
P,O. Box 911 * Charlottesville, Virginia * 22902
Telephone 804~971-3131
Fax: 804-971-9523
June 20,
1995
C. Richard Cranwell
Cranwell & Moore
P. O. Box 11804
Roanoke, VA 24022-1804
Re: TO~ Revorsio~
Dear Mr. Cranwell:
Your letter of June 15, 1995, renewing the
Supervisors' offer to sit down with the City Council
reversion was received late.last week.
Board of
to discuss
We appreciate your takin~ the time to send that invitation and
with it your advice underscOrin~ the need for a continuin~ dialogue
between the two lo~al ~overnin:g bodies.
In our opinion Council already knows the need for such a
dialogue and is committed to seeing that it occurs. Council fully
~understandS that the two jurlSdi~ti0ns have far too many common
interests and joint projects tlc stop talkin~ tO each other and Will
do everythln~ withi.n reason to encourage meaningful, on,oink, and
easy: communication amQn~ elected:.and appointed :officials on any
Sub~eCt of mutual interest. Thls, type of communication must
flOUriSh for the Sake o~ our community as a wll°le, whether or not
the reversion process continues and regardless °f the end reSUlt.
We currently have nO proposed date to suggest for a joint
meetln~ of the Board and Council because~att of the preparatory
work necessary for such a meetin~ has not been done. When that work
i~ finished or at least nearln9 comp}e~ion, we presume the Mayor
will contact his counterpart to set up a mutually agreeable meetinM
date. In the interim, if our office can be of any assistaIlce to the
County, I hope Larry Davis or you will call me.
Sincerely yours,
W. Clyde Gouldman, II
City Attorney
cc:
City Council (w/ copy of Cranwell letter)
~ary O'Connell (w/ copy of Cranwell letter)
Larry Davis
AGENDA IT~ NAME
DEFERRED UNTIL
Form.3
7/25/86
Forra. 3
7/25/86
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Superwsors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4696
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
June 19, 1995
Charles S. Martin
Walter F. Perkins
Sally H. Thomas
TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS ADDRESSED:
This is to provide notice to you, as an adjacent properuy owner, that
ZMA-95-02 and ZMA-95-03 - H & H Partnership have been rescheduled for public
hearing due uo an advertising error. The petitions are described as follows:
ZMA-95-02. H & H Partnership. To rezone approx 1.88 acs from R-2
to HC. Property in SW corner of Rt 631/I-64 inters. TM76,P55B.
Site recommended for Community Service in Neighborhood 5 in
Comprehensive Plan. Scottsville Dist.
ZMA-95-03. H & H Partnership. TO rezone approx 2.163 acs from R-2
5o HC. Property in SW corner of Rt 631/I-64 inuers. TM76,P55D.
Site recommended for Community Service in Neighborhood 5 in
Comprehensive Plan. Scottsville Dist.
The Board of Supervisors will hear these peitions on Wednesday, June 28, 1995.
The meeting will be held at 7:00 P.M., in Meeting Room #241 (formerly Room ~7),
Second Floor, County Office Building. If you should have any commen=s or
questions, please do not hesitate to conuacE the undersigned.
Sincerely,
Ella W.
Carolyn C. Adams
Richard C., Sr., or Sharon T. Cason
Erin, Inc.
James M. Johnson, Jr.
Glenn J. or Charlotte L. Rouse
Hugh D. & Dorothy B. Underwood
Norma C. Wilson
Forest Lodge Land Trust
William D. Fritz
Phillip W & Nancy C. Brown
Chester L. & Carolyn L. Davis
Herbert L. or Ella Jane Greene
Robert W. & Nancy D. Mays
Perry W. or Debbie D Shifflett
Robert L. & Alice H. Trainum
Hurt Investment CO.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
t:~dnted on recycled paper
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4696
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
June 13, 1995
Charles S. Martin
Wal~er F. perkins
Sal¥ H. Thomas
Mr. S. W. Heischman
H & H Partnership
PO Box 7324
Charlottesville, VA
22906
Dear Mr. Heiechman:
This letter is to notify you that ZMA-9$-02 and ZMA-95-03 - H & H Partnership
have been rescheduled for public hearing due to an advertising error. These
requests will be heard by the Board of Supervisors on WEDNESDAY, June 28,
1995.
The meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room #241
Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Virginia.
(formerly Room #7),
Charlottesville,
YOU OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT AT THIS NEHTING.
We are sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused. If you should have
any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to eon~ac~ the undersigned.
EWC:mms
cc: V. Wayne Cilimberg
William D. Fritz
Si_ncerely,~
~la W. Carey, Cl~r~k, C
Printed on recycled paper
Heischman Construction
April 26, 1995
Mr. Wayne Cilimberg
Director of Planning
Department of Planning & Community Development
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Dept.
ZMA-94-02 H&H Partnership
ZMA-94-03 H&H Partnership
Dear Wayne:
Earlier this month I received a letter from Bill Fritz indicating that the
Albemarle County B~ard of Supervisors is scheduled to review and receive public
comment in reference to the above on May 10, 1995. I would like to request that
WA 94-02 and 94-03 be deferred until the Board's last meeting in June. I have
recently retained Start Tatum of Land Planning & Design Associates, Inc. to review
traffic and other concerns expressed in the Planning Commission meeting on April
11 and would like a little more, time to address these items with Mr. Tatum.
Please call me at 971-97~4 if you have any questions.
Since/~y,
S. W. Heis~hman
H&H LLC
Joe Wright
Stan Tatum
Heischman Construction Company O"Il.- q7~¥
P. O, Box 7324 · Charlottesville, Virginia 22906 · 804-975z4800-
ORDINANCE NO. 95-20 (2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING, ARTICLE III,
DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that Chapter 20, Zoning, Article III, District
Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained by amending section
29.2.2, By Special Use Permit, Category I, as follows:
29.0
~LANNED DEVELOPMENT - INDUSTRIAL PARK - PD-IP
29.2
PERMITTED USES
29.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT - CATEGORY I
The following uses shall be permitted only by special use
permit provided that no separate application shall be
required for any use included on the approved application
plan;
Uses permitted by special use permit in the LI
Light Industry district;
2. Hotels, motels, inns (reference 9.4.2).
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing
is a true, correct copy of an ordinance adopted by the Board of
County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at an adjourned
meeting held on June 28, 1995.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMENDAND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING, ARTICLE III,
DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that Chapter 20, Zoning, Article III, District
Regulations, is hereby amended and reordainsd by amending section
29.2.2, By Special Use Permit, Category I, as follows:
29.0
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - INDUSTRIAL PARK - PD-IP
29.2
PERMITTED USES
29.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT - CATEGORY I
........
plan.
The following uses shall be permitted only by special use
permit provided that no separate application shall be
required for any use included on the approved application
plan;
Uses permitted by special use permit in the LI
Liqht Industry district;
2. Hotels, motels, inns Ireference 9.0).
May24,1995
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclnfire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4,596
(8041 296-5823
: 2 5
Mr. Tim Rose
University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation
P. O. Box 9023
Charlottesville, VA 22903
RE: ZTA-95-02 Universi~yof Virginia Real Estate
Dear Mr. Rose:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 23, 1995, by a vote of
4-1, recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. The
following amendment to the PD-IP zone was recommended for approval:
~9.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT CATEGORY I
The followin~ uses shall be permitted only bv special use permit provided that no
senarate application shall be required for any use included on the approved application
Dian:
Uses permitted by special use permit in the LI Light Industry_ di~trict;
Hotels, motels, inns (reference 9.0).
Page 2
May24,1995
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on JUJVE 21. 1995. Any new or additional information
regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least
seven days prior m your scheduled heating date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Ronald S. Keeler
Chief of Planning
RSK/jcw
cc: Ella Carey Jo Higgins Amelia McCulley'
DaSd P. Bou~rman
Charlotte Y. Humphris
For~est R. Marshall, Jr
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX ~8041 296~5800
June 13, 1995
Char]es S. Martin
Waiter F. Perkins
Mr. Tim Rose
Chief Operating Engineer
University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation
PO Box 9023
Charlottesville, VA 22903
This letter is to notify you that ZTA-95-2 - Univmrsity of V£rginia Real
Estate Foundation has been rescheduled for public hearing due to an
advertising error The request will be heard by the Board of Supervisors on
WEDNESDAY, June 28, 1995.
The meeting will he held a~ 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room #241 (formerly Room #7),
Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
YOU OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT AT THIS MEETING.
We are sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused. If you should have
any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
EWC:mms
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Ronald S. Keeler
Si cerely~
Printed on recycled paper
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
RONALD S. KEELER
MAY 23, 1995
JUNE 21, 1995
ZTA-95-02 UREF: TO AMEND USES PERMITTED IN PD-IP PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-
INDUSTRIAL PARK
BACKGROUND: The 1989 Comprehensive Plan introduced six "service area" designations in
place of more traditional office, commercial, and industrial land use designations. Zoning
ordinance amendments were necessary to accommodate these new designations. It was
recognized the need to maintain conventional office, commercial, and industrial zoning
designations for small-scale and individusl uses and the zoning ordinance contained 23
conventional, planned development and overlay zoning districts. For several reasons, instead of
developing additional zoning districts to accommodate the service area designations, Section 9.0
Guidelines for Comprehensive Plan Service Areas was introduced into the zoning ordinance
together with amendments to various existing zoning districts. This action enabled the
establishment of service areas by employing comb'mations of exist'mg zoning districts under
planned development or proffered rezoning petition.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan was amended (CPA-94-1) to expand
the Hollymead community to incorporate all land for the UREF North Fork Business Park. The
textual amendment describes the area as "industrial/office." This description is viewed as a
hybrid or combination of the industrial service areas and office service areas described in the
Comprehensive Plan (Attachment A). The most appropriate single zoning designation to
accommodate the Comprehensive Plan combination designation is the PD-IP Planned
Development-Industrial Park, however, the PD-IP does not provide for all proposed uses.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: Initially, the applicant proposed creation of a third use category
(Category II1) within the PD-IP zone. After worksession with the Zoning Administrator and
Planning staff, it was determined that Category I (i.e. - LI uses) with addition of
"hotel/conference center" would satisfactorily avail the uses desired by UREF for the North Fork
Business Park.
STAFF COMMENT:
Provision was made in the Zoning Ordinance for "hotels, motels, inns" in appropriate zonmg
districts to accommodate Office Service Areas as described in the Comprehensive Plan. The PD-
IP is the most comprehensive zoning district to embrace the variety of uses required to
implement the combination "Indusmal/Office" land use designation recommended for North
Fork by the Comprehensive Plan. In order to acltieve varied uses to enact this designation
through ord'mance, "hotels, motels, inns" should be introduced into the PD-IP. The public
purpose to be served would be to implement the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan.
As a provision by special use permit, the County could exercise control of location and other
considerations within the planned development or disapprove the use if special use permit
criteria cannot be satisfactorily satisfied.
Staffrecommends the following amendment to the PD-IP zone:
29.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT CATEGORY I
The followin~ uses shall be permitted only by soecial use permit provided that no
separate application shall be required for any use included on the approved application
plan:
1. Uses oermitted bv special use permit in the LI Light Industry district;
2. Hotels. motels, inns (reference 9.0~.
A:\ZTA9502.RPT
RECEIVED
3 0 1995
Planning Dept.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 Mclnfire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5875 FAX (804) 972-4060
TDD (8041 972-4012
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning Division
^me~a G. McCulle¥, Zoning ^dministrator
May 30, 1
Official Determination of Use - Hotel/Conference Center
This is in response to your request for a written determination. It is my opinion
that the category of use for hotels, also includes a hotel I conference or convention
center as an accessory activity.
This decision is based on the finding that a conference center use is customarily
associated with and incidental to hotels of certain sizes. Currently, as is typical of other
localities, the larger hotels in this City / County area offer conference and banquet
facilities.
Our zoning regulations do not list conference or convention centers as specific
uses. In a bdef review of the ordinances of several other localities, I found that the
majority also do not list this use separately. Therefore, it is commonly accepted as an
accessory use. The lodging and dining facilities of a hotel are fre6tuently directly
supportive of the conference center use.
If you are aggrieved by this decision, you have a right to appeal the notice within
thirty days in accordance with Section 15.1-496.1 of the State Code, or the decision
shall be final and unappealable if not appealed within thirty days. Such appeal shall be
taken within thirty days after the decision appealed from by filing with the zoning
administrator, and with the board,, a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof.
CC:
Reading File
(1995diska:memohotel.st)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Superwsors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 229024596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Walter F. Perkhns
Sally H. Thomas
MEMO TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Ella We Carey, Clerk, CMCg~/~ '
DATE: July 12, 1995
SUBJECT: Supplement No. 79 to the Zoning Ordinance
Attached are amended sheets to be placed in your copy of the Zoning .
Ordinance. These changes are occasioned by the amendments adopted
on June 28, 1995~ relating to special use permit.
EWCftpf
cc:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr. (1)
Richard Huff, II (1)
Larry W. Davis (3)
Water Resources Manager (1)
V. Wayne Cilimberg (12)
Amelia McCulley (1)
Clerk (3)
Printed on recycled paper
29.0
29.1
29.2
29o2.1
29.2°2
29o2~3
pLANNED DEVELOPMENT - INDUSTRIAL PARK - PD-IP
INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED
PD-IP districts are hereby created and may hereafter be estab-
lished by amendment to the zoning map to permit a variety of
industrial uses, =ogether with certain uses ancillary thereto,
which are compatible with and do not detract either from each
other or from surrounding districts. It is intended that PD-IP
districts may be established in areas in conformity with the
comprehensive plan and having all of the following characteris-
tics:
-Areas served by water and sewer facilities, or if such facilities
are reasonably available;
-Areas served by major highway, rail or air service, or secondary
road improved to standards approved by the county; and
-Areas having clearly demonstrated suitability for intended uses
with regard to physical characteristics and relationship to
surrounding developmen=.
In the establishment of any PD-IP district, the board of supervi-
sors shall designate the category of uses which shall be permitted
in each parcel, or part thereof~ which is the subject of the
application for such amendment.
PERMITTED USES
BY RIGHT - CATEGORY I
The following uses shall be permitted in any area designated as
Category I os the approved application plan:
Uses permitted by right shall include uses permitted by
right in the LI light industry district~
BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT - CATEGORY I
The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit
provided that no separate application shall be required for any
use included on the approved application plan: (Araended 6-28-95)
Uses permitted by special use permit in the LI light indus-
try district;
2o Hotels, motels, inns (reference 9°4.2). (Added 6-28-95)
BY RIGHT - CATEGORY II
The following uses shall be permitted in any area designated as
Category II on the approved application plan:
Uses permitted by right shall include uses permitted by
right in the LI light industry district and the HI heavy
industry district.
-171- Suppo #79, 6128-95)
29°2.4
29.3
29 °4
29~5
BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT - CATEGORY II
Uses by special use permit shall include uses permitted by special
use permit in the LI light industry district and the HI heavy
industry district; provided that no separate application shall be
required for any use included on the approved application plano
MINIMUM AREA REQUIRED FOR CREATION OF DISTRICT
Minimum area required for creation of a PD-IP district shall be
fifty (50) acres; provided, however that when an initial PD-IP
district has been created, incremental additions ~o such district
shall be permitted if such incremental addition adjoins and forms
a logical addition to the existing district.
NUMBER OF PERMITTED USES
The number of permitted uses shall not exceed the total number of
~cres within the district divided by ~en (10).
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
In addition ~o requirements contained herein~ the requirements of
sections 8.0 and 26.0 shall apply to all PD-IP districts. In
addition to materials required by section 8.5.1, a ~ransportation
analysis plan shall be submitted with the application for PD-IP
district designation° Such plan shall show: projected automobile
and truck traffic generation; percent of truck traffic by type;
internal and access point turning movement; general alignments of
internal roads; rights-of-way widths and roadway typical sections
including base strength designs; proposed improvements to the
existing transportation network; percentage estimate of traffic
distribution to and from the site on external roads; bus and car
pool programs, if any. The phasing of improvements enumerated an
this section shall be indicated on the plan.
-172-176- (Suppo #44~ 10-12-88)
29.0
29.1
29.2
29.2.1
29~2.2
29.2.3
pLANNED DEVELOPMENT - INDUSTRIAL PARK - PD-IP
INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED
PD-IP districts are hereby created and may hereafter be estab-
lished by amendment to the zoning map to permit a variety of
industrial uses, together with certain uses ancillary thereto,
which are compatible with and do not detract either from each
other or from surrounding districts. It is intended that PD-IP
districts may be established in areas in conformity with the
comprehensive plan and having all of the following characteris-
tics:
-Areas served by water and sewer facilities, or if such facilities
are reasonably available;
-Areas served by major highway, rail or air service, or secondary
road improved to standards approved by the county; and
-Areas having clearly demonstra=ed suitability for intended uses
with regard to physical characteristics and relationship to
surrounding development.
In the establishment of any PD-IP district, the board of supervi-
sors shall designate the category of uses which shall be permitted
in each parcel, or part thereof~ which is the subject of the
application for such amendment°
PERMITTED USES
BY RIGHT - CATEGORY I
The following uses shall be permitted in any area designated as
Category I on the approved application plan:
Uses permitted by right shall include uses permitted by
right in the LI light industry district.
BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT - CATEGORY I
The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit
provided that no separate application shall be required for any
use included on the approved application plan: (Amended 6-28-95)
Uses permitted by special use permit in the LI light indus-
try district;
2. Hotels, motels, inns (reference 9.4.2). (Added 6-28-95)
BY RIGHT - CATEGORY II
The following uses shall be permitted in any area designated as
Category II on the approved application plan:
Uses permitted by right shall include uses permitted by
right in the LI light industry district and the HI heavy
industry district.
-171- 8upp. ~79, 6228,95)
29.2.4
29.3
29°4
29.5
BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT - CATEGORY II
Uses by special use permit shall include uses permitted by special
use permit in the LI light industry district and the HI heavy
industry district; provided that no separate application shall be
required for any use included on the approved application plan.
MINIMUM AREA P~QUIRED FOR CREATION OF DISTRICT
Minimum area required for creation of a PD-IP district shall be
fifty (50) acres; provided, however that when an initial PD-IP
district has been created, incremental additions to such district
shall be permitted if such incremental addition adjoins and forms
a logical addition to the existing district.
NUMBER OF PERMITTED USES
The number of permitted uses shall not exceed the total number of
acres within the district divided by ten (10)o
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
In addition to requirements contained herein, the requirements of
sections 8.0 and 26.0 shall apply to all PD-IP districts° In
addition to materials required by section 8.5.t, a transportation
analys~s plan shall be submitted with the application for PD-IP
district designation. Such plan shall show: projected automobile
and truck traffic generation; percent of truck traffic by Type;
internal and access point turning movement; general alignments of
internal roads; rights-of-way widths and roadway typical sections
including base strength designs; proposed improvements to the
existing transportation network; percentage estimate of traffic
distribution to and from the site on external roads; bus and car
pool programs, if any. The phasing of improvements enumerated in
this section shall be indicated on the plan.
-172-176-
(Suppo ~44, 10-12-88)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
{804 296.5843 FAX (804/296-$800
Charles S. Martin
Walter F. Perkins
Sally H. Thomas
MEMO TO: Board of Supervisors
FRO~: Ella W. Carey,
DATE: July 12, 1995
SUBJECT: Supplement No.
Clerk, CMC
79 to the Zoning Ordinance
Attached are amended sheets to be placed in your copy of the Zoning
Ordinance. These changes are occasioned by the amendments adopted
on June 28, 1995, relating to special use permit.
EWC/tpf
OC:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr. (1)
Riohard Huff, II (1)
Larry W. Davis (3)
Water Resources Manager (1)
V. Wayne Cilimberg (12)
Amelia McCulley (1)
Clerk (3)
Printed on recycled paper
29.0
29.1
29.2
29.2.1
29.2.2
29.2.3
PL~/qNED DEVELOP~ENT - I~DUS~RIAL PARK - PD-IP
INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED
PD-IP districts are hereby created and may hereafter be
established by amendment to the zoning map to permit a
variety of industrial uses, together with certain uses
ancillary thereto, which are compatible with and do not
detract either from each other or from surrounding dis-
tricts. It is intended that PD-IP districts may be estab-
lished in areas in conformity with the comprehensive plan
and having all of the following characteristics:
-Areas served by water and sewer facilities, or if such
facilities are reasonably available;
-Areas served by major highway, rail or air service, or
secondary road improved to standards approved by the
county; and
-Areas having clearly demonstrated suitability for intended
uses with regard to physical characteristics and relation-
ship to surrounding development.
In the establishment of any PD-IP district, the board of
supervisors shall designate the category of uses which shall
be permitted in each parcel, or part thereof, which is the
subject of the application for such amendment.
PERMITTED USES
BY RIGHT - CATEGORY I
The following uses shall be permitted in any area designated
as Category I on the approved application plan:
1. Uses permitted by right shall include uses permitted by
right in the LI light industry district.
BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT - CATEGORY I
Uses permitted by special use permit shall include uses
permitted by special use permit in the LI light industry
district; provided that no separate application shall be
required for any use included on the approved application
plan.
BY RIGHT - CATEGORY II
The following uses shall be permitted in any area designated
as Category II on the approved application plan:
Uses permitted by right shall include uses permitted
by right in the LI light industry district and the HI
heavy industry district.
-171- (Supp. ~44, 10-12-88)
29.2.4'
29.3
29.4
29.5
BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT - CkTEGORY II
Uses by special use permit shall include uses permitted by
special use permit in the LI light industry district and the
HI heavy industry district; provided that no separate
application shall be required for any use included on the
approved application plan.
MINIMUM AREA REQUIRED FOR CREATION OF DISTRICT
Minimum area required for creation of a PD-IP district shall
be fifty (50) acres; provided, however that when an initial
PD-IP district has been created, incremental additions to
such district shall be permitted if such incremental
addition adjoins and forms a logical addition to the
existing district.
NUMBER OF PERMITTED USES
The number of permitted uses shall not exceed the total
number of acres within the district divided by ten (10).
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
In addition to requirements contained herein, the require-
ments of sections 8.0 and 26.0 shall apply to all PD-IP
districts. In addition uo materials required by section
8.5.1, a transportation analysis plan shall be submitted
with the application for PD-IP district designation. Such
plan shall show: projected automobile and truck traffic
generation; percent of truck traffic by type; internal and
access point turning movement; general alignments of in-
ternal roads; rights-of-way widths and roadway typical
sections including base strength designs; proposed improve-
menus to the existing transportation network~ percentage
estimate of traffic distribution to and from the site on
external roads; bus and car pool programs, if any. The
phasing of improvements enumerated in this section shall be
indicated on the plan.
-172-176- (Supp. $44, 10-12-88)
June 8, 1995
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4~96
(8041 296-5823
~i~ribu~ed ~
~g~,d~ item
Robert W. & Mildred A. Couch. Jr
4886 Richmond PCoad
Keswick, VA 22947
RE: SP-95-06 Robert Couch, Jr
Tax Map 79A(1), Section C, Parcels 10 & 11
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Couch:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 6, 1995, unknously
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that
this approval is subject to the following conditions:
Approval is for an expansion not to exceed: a second story to the existing building, the
floor area of which shall not exceed the floor area of the existing building; and a storage
building not to exceed 1;664 square feet in total floor area.
Either the storage building or second floor expansion as described in #1 above shall
comply with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.4 or this approval shall be deemed null and
void.
Upon satisfaction of#2 above, the applicant shall have not more than 5 years fi:om date
of approval of this petition to complete construction of all expansion granted herein;
Staff approval of sketch plan drawn to a scale of 1" = 20' including but no~ limited to:
a. Area for back-up drainfield as approved by the Virginia Department of Health;
b. Paving of entrance fi:om US Route 250 to parking area and upgrading entrance to
current Virginia Department of Transportation geometric standards.
Page 2
June 8, 1995
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on JUNE 21 1995. 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 cm3tacr me.
Sincerely,
Ronald S.Keeler
Chief of Pla~'mg
RSK/jcw
ce: Ella Carey
Jo Higgms
Amelia McCulley
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
RONALD S. KEELER
JUNE 6, 1995
JUNE 21, 1995
SP-95-06 - ROBERT COUCH, JR.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The existing antique shop is non-conforming. This request is to
allow construction ora 32' x 52' storage building (1664 square feet) and second story addition to
the existing building C~- 3,615 square feet). Storage building conswaction would be immediate;
second story addition, dependent on business, would occur within five years (see Attachment B).
PETITION: ,Robert Couch, Jr. petitions the Board of Supervisors to permit expansion of an
existing antique shop [10.2.2(36)] on approximately 1.2 acres zoned P.A, Rural Areas and EC,
Entrance Corddor~Overlay District. Property, described as Tax Map 79A(1), Section C, Parcels
10 & 11, is located on the north side of Route 250 East approximately 0.5 mile east of the
entrance to the Glenmore development in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not
located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 2).
CHARACTER OF THE AREA: This site is developed with a + 3,615 square foot antique
shop and a mobile home (The mobile home is occupied by the prior property owner under life
rights arrangement). For sketch of property development, see Attachment C. The property is in
the northwest intersection of Rome 250 East and Route 730. Across Route 730 to the east is the~
Moose Lodge. A dwelling and antiques/furniture shop are to the west. On the south side of
Route 250 East are three dwellings and an upholstery shop.
Route 250 East between Route 22 and the Fluvanna County line is generally a combination of
larger tracts and small lot rural development. Several commercial buildings, constructed prior to
Interstate 64 and County zoning regulation, are located along this road segment. Most have had
variable uses in the past and some have become conforming through special use permit review.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this proposal for satisfaction of 31.2.4.1, criteria
for issuance of a special use permit, and recommends approval with conditions.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY: This site has not received any approvals from the
County except under the non-conformity provisions. While the building has been used for
antique sales for several years, other tourist-oriented uses pre-dated the antique sho~.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan contains no guidelines for commercial
uses allowed in the RA zone. Over the years, through review, staff has developed historical
guidelines for review and this proposal is consistent with those guidelines. The Rivanna Village
is situated southwest of this site. A concern, reflected in the Comprehensive Plan text for the
Village, was commercial development in the area. Staff opinion is that this language was not
intended to preclude expansion of existing rural corranercial uses.
.REVIEW AND COMMENT:
Staffwill address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use
permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance
may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of
substantial detriment to adjacent property.
The purpose of this petition is to allow expansion of an existing use. As stated previously,
adjacent or in close proximity are an antique/furniture shop, Moose Lodge and upholstery shop.
Staff is unaware of any negative aspects generated by the amique shop and cannot identify any
aspect of expttnsion which would be detrimental to adjacent property. The applicant has obtained
signatures from a~djoining owners indicating no objection (Attachment D).
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
Expansion of the antique shop would not change the character of agricultural/forestal or
residential uses in the area. Due to the number of non-residential uses in the immediate area, staff
opinion is that character in regard to usage is not changed. Expansion will require ARB approval
to ensure consistency with Entrance Corridor aesthetic considerations.
and that such use wilt be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
The Comprehensive Plan and subsequently the statement of intent of the RA zone emphasize four
purposes of the Rural Areas:
Preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities;
Water supply protection;
Limited service delivery to rural areas; and
Conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources.
Allowance is made for several uses, not supportive of these four purposes, by special use permit.
Therefore, staffreview focuses on whether or not a particular proposal is significantly contrarjt to
these four purposes. Staffis unable to identify any significant contrary aspect of this proposal.
It should be noted regarding the scale of the proposal that ultimate development as proposed
would result in almost 8,900 square feet gross building area which would be among the larger
"girl, craft, antique shop" uses approved to date in the Rural Areas. Eastoffs Antiques/Furniture
to the west contains 16,800 square feet of floor area in two buildings.
In addition to the intent of the Rural Areas, staff has reviewed this proposal for consistency with
Section 1.4,. 1.5, & 1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. While the proposal is viewed as consistent with
most criteria, discussion of possible inconsistencies will be provided under "public health, safety
and general welfare."
2
with uses permitted by-right in the district,
Based on previous commem, staffopinion is that the proposal will have no negative impact on
permitted uses in the area.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of [the Zoning Ordinance].
Section 5.0 contains no additional regulations applicable to this use.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare
Positive findin~g under this criterion warrants discussion of two (2) issues-access and intensity of
development.
Access: The Department of Transportation has provided comment regarding entrance
improvements (Attachment E), Virginia Department of Transportation has recommended: a left
turn lane; reservation of right-of-way; and entrance improvements.
Neither Engineering or Planning staff support requirement of a left turn lane. Staff has reviewed
all other non-farm/non-residential entrances along Route 250 East from Route 22 to the Fluvanna
County line and, with exception of the Glenmore entrance (_+ 7,500 vehicle trips per day) no other
entrance is served by a left turn lane. Virginia Department of Transportation has stated the use
does not warrant a left turn lane, but expresses concern as to increasing traffic volumes and '
safety in the corridor. Should the Planning Commission and Board share this concern, it is
recommended that Virginia Department of Transportation be requested to develop interim
policies to address traffic issues as was done under the 1979 US Route 29 North Corridor Study
which provided basis for consistent treatment of access issues since its adoption.
Regarding reservation of right-of-way for future possible upgrading to four lanes no potential
right-of-way limits have been established. While no improvements are shown closer to Route 250
than currently situated, staff`will not support parking expansion closer to the roadway than
currently exists for general purposes of safe and convenient access and circulation.
Regarding improvement to the existing entrance, staff agrees that the entrance should be
improved to current Virginia Department of Transportation geometrics (i.e. 25~ radii; 30' width).
Staff recommends the entrance be paved to the parking area rather than the edge of right-of-way
to allow vehicles traveling at higher speeds to safely emer the site.
Intensity of Developme~n_t: This site is currently nonconforming in terms of the: minimum lot size
required in the Rural areas (Section 10_0) and minimum area required for two uses not served by
central water or sewer.
The BOCA building code does not require provision of public restrooms for this use or
expansion; the applicant does not intend to provide public restroom. Staff`is concerned thai
additional development not encroach upon back-up drainfield area, if any exists (This particular
area of the County generally has demonstrated soils characteristics not conducive to septic
systems).
3
Due to additional costs, staff has not requested demonstration that the site can be developed as
proposed under site plan and other regulations (ministerial review) prior to disposition of special
use permit review (legislative decision). Staffwill propose conditions which will permit the
applicant to pursue development of the property to the extem practical under County regulation.
That is to say, conditions will offer the applicant decision as to how to develop the property
under County regulation.
SUMMARY: Staffwill summarize this petition in terms of aspects favorable and unfavorable to
the proposal:
FAVORABLE:
The request generally satisfies the criteria for positive findings to issue a special use
permit;
The request is consistent with historical reviews related to location of tourist-oriented
businesses. Route 250 East is an EC, Entrance Corridor indicating by Code language, a
significan[ volume of tourist traffic.
While significant expansion is proposed, approval would allow the County to require
compliance with current regulations. Disapproval would permit reliance upon
nonconformities provisions including any outdoor display not abandoned for more than
two years.
UNFAVORABLE:
Staffhas expressed concern as to the viability of the proposed expansion in terms of
lot size/soils vs. additional building/parking area coverage, however, believes that these
issues can be adequately addressed through ordinance operation (Easton's
antiques/furniture has C-t zoning which permitted expansion by-right and expansion was
satisfactorily accommodated under sketch plan).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
Approval is for an expansion not to exceed: a second story to the existing building, the
floor area of which shall not exceed the floor area of the existing building; and a storage
building not to exceed 1,664 square feet in total floor area.
Either the storage building or second floor expansion as described in #1 above shall
comply with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.4 or this approval shall be deemed null and
void.
3. Upon satisfaction of#2 above, the applicant shall have not more than 5 years from date of
approval of this petition to complete construction of all expansion granted herein;
4. Staff approval of sketch plan drawn to a scale of 1" = 20' including but not limited to:
a. Area for back-up drainfield as approved by the Virginia Department of Health;
b. Paving of entrance from US Route 250 to parking area and upgrading entrance to
current Virginia Department of Transportation geometric standards.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Attachmer/t A - Location and parcel maps
2. Attachment B 7 Applicant's proposal
3. Attachment C - Sketch of existing/proposed development
4. Attachment D ~ Signatures of adjoining property owners
5. Attachment E - VDOT comment.
I:\GENERAL\SHAREXJ3ARBARA~ROBERT-C.RPT
5
ALBEMARLE
64
\ ---~\
\ ,
RIVANNA AND
'TSVILLE DISTRICTS
· RIVANNA D
ALBEMARLE
COUNTY
_ SP-95-06 Robert Couch, Jr
II --
ROYAL ACRES D.B
280,
Pg.5~5
RIVANNA DISTRICT
SECTION 79AI
,!
z
0
c
0
c
S46012'(~0-W
250.00'
r- ...4
ST/~ TE
.-I
IT1
('3
LOT ii
r- .~1
~b.2o~
ROUTE 730
{EAST KESWICK DRIVE}
0
0
r
A~TACHMENT BI
Mr. and Mrs. R.W. Couch, Jr.
4886 Richmond Road
Keswick, VA 22947
14. March 1995
Albemarle County Office Building
Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
To whom it may concern:
We, Robert W. Couch, Jr. and Mildred A. Couch, request permission to build a 32' X 52'
storage building as indicated in the sketch marked storage. We also request permission to
build a second floor on the existing building as shown in the sketch within the next five
years. This building is being operated as an antique shop, presently called A & W Collect-
ables, trader the grandfather clause, special use permit licensed to Mildred A. Couch. If
these requests are not acceptable, please indicate acceptable alterations for growth and
storage for the existing business.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Couch, Jr. and Mildred A. Couch
CC:
County of Albemarle Planning and Zoning
County Supervisors
I ATTACHPIENT C I
Iv'EL
· I0/.,/FROt4 Efy..~E OI=
/
TELEPHONE
P~LE
second floor or storage building to be built on the east side of the exist'rog
building, (A&W Collectables,) in Royal Acres subdivision, lots 10 and 11,
owned by Robert W. and Mildred A. Couch, the current usage of which is
antiques and collectables,
signature
2of 6
I, ~c~/:~ .J~/~{~ A,/ '3~'/ ye no objection to the addition of a
second floor or storage building to be built on the east side of the existing
building, (A&W Collectables,) in Royal Acres subdivision, lots 10 and 1t,
owned by Robert W. and Mildred A. Couch, the current usage of which is
antiques and collectables.
signature
~c~6
second floor or storage building to be built on the east side of the existing
building, (A&W Collectables,) in Royal Acres subdivision, lots 10 and 11,
owned by Robert W. and Mildred A. Couch. the current usage of which is
antiques and collectables.
)~?r~/~:/~,9_~ date
signature
4 Of 6
second floor or storage building to be built on the east side of the existing
building, (A&W Collectables,) in Royal Acres subdivision, lots 10 and 11,
owned by Robert W. and Mildred A. Couch, the current usage of which is
armques and collectables.
signature
5of6
I, (-~- ~-.~.~-,~'/~'//'~ , have no objection to the addition of a
second floor or storage building to be built on the east side of the existing
building, (A&W Collectables,) in Royal Acres subdivision, lots 10 and 11,
owned by Robert W. and Mildred A. Couch, the currem usage of which is
antiques and collectables.
~-~, //~/~- signature
6of6
I ....... have no objection to the addition of a
second floor or storage building to be built on the east side of the existing
building, (A&W Collectables,) in Royal Acres subdivision, lots 10 and 11,
owned by Robert W. and Mildred A. Couch, the current usage of which is
antiques an~t collectables.
'~/~'~~:5:7~ signature <~/~/~ date
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
~804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-8800
13, 1995
Charles S. Martin
Walter F. Perkins
Sally H. Thomas
TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS ADDRESSED:
This is to provide notice uo you, as an adjacent properuy owner, that
Sp-95-06 - Robert Couch, Jr., has been rescheduled for public hearing due uo an
advertising error. The petition is described as follows:
SP-95-06. Robert Couch, Jr. To permit expansion of existing
antique shop & outdoor display of merchandise on approx 1.2 ac zoned
RA & EC located on N sd of Rt 250E approx 0.5 mi E of entrance uo
Glenmore dvlp. TM79A1,Ssc C,P'sl0&ll. Rivanna Dist.
The Board of Supervisors will hear this petition on Wednesday, June 28, 1995. The
meeting will be held au 7:00 P.M., in Meeting Room ~241 (formerly Room 97),
Second Floor, County office Building. If you should have any comments or
questions, please do no= hesitate to contact the undersigned.
cerely,
Ella W. Carey, Clerk
EWC:mms
cc:
Bernard E or Alice S Easton
Frederick N or Charlotte J Leach
Fays C Hensley
Herbert S Smith
B L & E Grant Cosner
V Wayne Cilimberg
Ronald S Keeler
Printed on recycled paper
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mc[ntke Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-8843 FAX (804) 296-5800
June 13, 1995
CharlesS. Mar~n
Walter F, Perkins
Sa~ H. Thomas
Robert W. and Mildred A. Couch
4886 Richmond Road
Keswick, VA 22947
Dear Mr~ and Mrs. Couch:
This letter is to notify you that SP-95-06 - Robert Couch, Jr., has been
rescheduled for public hearing due to an advertising error. The request will
be heard by the Board of Supervisors on WEDNESDAY, June 28, 1995.
The meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m.,
Second Floor, County Office Building,
Virginia.
Meeting Room #241 (formerly Room ~7) ~
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
YOU OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT AT THIS MEETING.
We are sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused. If you should have
any questions or concerns, please do no5 hesitate to contact the undersigned.
EWC:mm~
cc: V. Wayne Cilimberg
Ronald S~ Keeler
acerely'
P~inted on recycled paper
May 24, 1995
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning &: Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296~5823
Michael T. Waroblak
Institute of Textile Technology
2551 Ivy Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903-461
RE: SP-95-07 Institute of Textile Technology
Dear Mr. Waroblak:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 23, 1995,
unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following condition:
1. Enrollment is limited to forty (40) students.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on JUNE 21. 1995. 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 heating date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
/, /~-'
William D. Fritz
Senior Plan~er
/
cc: Ella (2'arey
./
Jo Higgins Amelia McCulley
Dan J. McCreight
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
MAY 23, 1995
JUNE 21, 1995
SP 95-07 INSTITUTE OF TEXTILE TECltNOLOGY
Applicant's Proposal: The existing school is nonconforming. This request is to br'mg the
school into compliance with the zon'mg ordinance to allow for expansion of the library. The
expansion of the library is to allow for continued accreditation of the school. The applicant has
provided a description of the request which provides detail on the operations of the school.
Petition: The Institute of Textile Technolog3r petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue a
special use permit for a school of special instruction ~23.2.2(6)] on approximately 12.5 acres
zoned CO, Commercial Office and EC, Entrance Corridor Overiay District. Property, described
as Tax Map 60, Parcel 28, is the location of the Institute of Textile Technology. This site is
located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District°
Character of the Area: This site is developed with several buildings used for the school. The
adjacent site is the location of the Kappa Sigma headquarters. The railroad forms the northern
border of the site.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of
Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval.
Planning and Zoning History: This site has not received any approvals from the County. The
school has been located on this site since the 1940's.
Comnrehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan land use plan indicates the front portion of this
site as office service and the rear portion as Rural Areas. This area was not included in the
growth area as it is in the reservoir watershed. This site was granted urban zoning to reflect the
existing use of the site.
REVIEW AND COMMENT:
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance:
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special tkqe
permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ord'mance
may be issued ut~on a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of
substantial detriment to ad_latent ~ropertv,
The purpose of this application is to make conforming an existing use which predates zoning m
the County and allow for expansion of the school's facilities, maintaining the vitality of the
school. Staff is unaware of any negative impacts generated by the school currently and is unable
to identify any impacts approval of this request would have on adjacent property.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby.
In the Comprehensive Rezoning in 1980 this site was zoned CO in recognition of the
u~sem Approval of this permit will not change the character of the school's operation and
should have no impact on the character of the district.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance.
Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent of the Ordinance as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5
and 1.6. Staff opinion is that approval of this request is consistent with the purpose and
intent of the ordilmnce in regards to the provision of adequate schools. The ordinance
also speaks to the encouragement of economic development. This facility does provide
employment and economic development in the County. Staff has also considered this
school's research and testing facilities as supportive of the domestic textile industry as a
whole.
with the uses permitted by right in the district.
Staff opinion is that approval of this request will have no negative impact on permitted
uses on this or other parcels in the area°
with additional regulations vrovided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance.
Section 5.0 contains no additional regulations.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has provided comments regarding this
special use permit (Attachment D). VDOT has stated concern that increased enrollment at the
site could generate the need for improvements to the enhance. This special use permit does not
contemplate facilities which are capable of supporting an increased enrollment. In fact
enrollment at the school has remained steady for a number of years at approximately 30 to 35
students. Discussions with the school indicate that the number of students in the near future is
likely to decrease. Any facilities which would be proposed to support a larger enrollment would
reqmre County site plan approvals which could incorporate improvements to the entrance if
deemed necessary. In order to address the concerns of the Department of Transportation, staff is
recommending flint enrollment be limited to 40 students. This is greater than the existing
enrollment, but is reflective of past activities. This site is currently served by public water and
private septic. (This site is located in the jurisdictional area for water only). The limitation on
the number of students will prevent increases in enrollment without additional review of the
septic system. No adverse impact on the public health is anticipated as currently the site is in
operation with no limitations on eurollment. Staff opinion is that this request will not have a
negative effect on the public health, safety or welfare.
SUMMARY:
Staffhas identified the following factors in favor of tins request:
1. The request is in accord with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1;
2. The request makes conforming a use winch has existed on this site for a number of years;
The request allows for the continued vitality ora use which is supportive of the economy
as a whole.
Staff has identified the following factor which is unfavorable to this request:
The site is not entirely- located in a designated growth area due to a location of part of the
site in the South Fork Rivauna Reservoir Watershed.
Staff would consider approval of a special use permit to establish a school on a vacant parcel not
in a designated growth area and in the reservoir watershed as inconsistent with County policy.
However, tins permit makes conforming a use which predates all County Zoning. Staff can
identify no intent on the part of the Board of Supervisors to make the school non-conforming
when the current zoning was adopted. In fact, staff opinion is that the Board of Supervisors
placed CO zoning on this site in recognition of the school. -Staff opinion is that approval of ~hi~
special use permit would be consistent with the actions taken by the Board in the 1980
comprehensive rezoning to establish zoning on developed parcels which is reflective of their use.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the above comments and the review of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance staff
recommends approval of this request. Staff recommends the following condition:
RECOMMENDED CONDITION OF APPROVAL:
1. Enrollment is limited to forty (40) students.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - Applicants Information
D - VDOT Comment
A:\SP9507.RPT
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclnfire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804} 296-5843 FAX (804} 296-5800
June 13, 1995
Charles S. Martin
Walter F. Perkins
Sal¥ H Thomas
TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS ADDRESSED:
This is to provide notice to you, as an adjacent properny owner, that
SP-95-07 Institute of Textile Technology has been rescheduled for public
hearing due to an advertising error The petition is described as follows:
8P-95-07. Institute of Textile Technology. Reques5 for school of
special instruction on approx 12.5 ac zoned CO & EC located on Rt
250W. Property is site of ITT. TM60,P28. Samuel Miller Dist.
The Board of Supervisors will hear this petition on Wednesday, June 28, 1995. The
meeting will be held an 7:00 P.M., in Meeting Room $241 (formerly Room #7),
Second Floor, County Office Building. If you should have any commenus or
questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned~
Sincerely,
Ella W. Carey,
EWC:mms
cc:
Ednam Associates
Ednam Community Association, Inc.
Farmington Country Club
Kappa Sigma Memorial Foundation
University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation
V Wayne Cilimberg
V~liam D. Fritz
Printed on recycled paper
DaSd P. Bowennan
Charlotte Y. Humphris
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX ~804'1 296-5800
Ju/le 13, 1995
Charles S. Martin
Walter F. Perkins
Sally H. Thomas
Mr. Michael T. Waroblak
Institute of Textile Technology
2551 Ivy Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
Dear Mr. Waroblak:
This letter is to notify you that SP-95-07 - Institute of Textile Technology
has been rescheduled for public hearing due to an advertising error. The
request will be heard by the Board of Supervisors on WEDNESDAY, June 28, 1995~
The meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room ~241 (formerly Room ~7) ~
Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
VirginIa.
YOU OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT AT THIS MEETING.
We are sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused. If you should have
any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contac~ the undersigned.
EWC:mms
cc: V. Wayne Cilimberg
William D. Fritz
Dan J. McCreight
S~,cerely, ~
E~~ey, Clerk, C~~
Printed on recycled paper
June 8, 1995
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Comraunity Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902~4596
(8041 ~96-5823
Pete Bradshaw '
Keswick Corporation
701 Club Drive
Keswick, VA 22947
SP-95-12 Keswick Corporation & Laura Yergan
Tax Map 80, Parcels 8, 8C1, 8D2, 8D3, 8D4, 8J, 8C, 8Z, 21A, 27, 29, 31, 41, 43, 4lA,
60, 60A, 61Al, 61, 62, 69, 70, 70A, 90, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 106, 109A and Tax
Map 94, Parcel 42A
Dear Mr. Bradshaw:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 6, 1995, by a vote of 4-2,
recommended denial of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on JUNE2..I, 1995. Any new or additional
information regarding yoar application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled bearing date.
If you should hav~ any qnestions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Yolanda Hipski
Planner
cc: Ella Carey
Laura Yergan
Jo Higgins
Amelia McCulley
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONFLICT OF INTERESTS ACT
~ANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
for officers and Employees of
Local Government [Section 2.1-639.14 (E) ]
4. Transaction:
5.
Nature of Personal Interest Affected by Transaction:
6, I declare that:
Dated:
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.
Jm~e 20, 1995
Members of the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesv/lle, VA 22902
Dear Board Member:
The purpose of this letter is to express my support for Spec/al Use
Permit 95-12 by Keswick Corporation and Mrs. Laura Yergan.
it is my understandkng that the purpose of this Special Use Penn/t
application is to allow Keswick Corporation to incorporate several important
changes into/ts existing master plan. t have ex~m/ned the proposed plan and
believe it to be a sigrdficant improvement over the plan approved in 1993 for
the following reasons:
1). Delet/on of the nine hole golf course expansion will prevent
the clearing of mature forest which buffer th~ estate from both I -
64 and other residential subdiv/sions adjacent to Kesw/ck.
2). Redesign of the lot layout with frontage orientation to Club
Drive will allow for the creation of a 127 acre open space
system 85% of which protects both the 1-64 entry corridor to the
County and provides for open space along Route 744.
3). Since 1993, Keswick Corporation has acqu/red
approximately 17 acres wkich are proposed to be added to this
plan. Part of th/s acquisition will allow for a connector road
from Club Drive to the land on the east side of Broadmoor Lake.
Without this Connector an additional crossing of the 100 year
flood plain of Carrol Creek will be requ/red.
4). The proposed plan doeg not fi~crease res/dent/al dens/t/es
beyond that wk/ch could theoreticalIy be ach/eyed "by r/ght" in
the rural areas as descr/bed in tile County Zoning ~)rdinance
w/th~~fl~~l~ Th/s pam'cular plan,
w/tll 85 res/dent/al lots instead of tile current 75, does however
requ/_re the Board of Superv/sors to grant more development
r/ghts than can be ach/eyed "by r/ght" on six parcels of record.
It appears to be in tile best interest of all part/es to allow for
these addit/onal development r/ghts. To do so will al/ow for an
approved plan wh/ch is more env/ronmentally sensitive (delet/on
of nine hole golf course expansion and 5,400 linear feet of roads
plus associated water and sewer) and does not negatively/-mpact
the character of the neighborhood.
I also believe the Board should reco~zize the sign/ficant contr/bution
that S/r Bernard Askley has made to the commtm/ty since his purchase of
Kesudck in I990. The transformation of tile old Kesw/ck Club and creation
of a f~rst class res/dent/al commun/ty is truly a remarkable accomp//shment.
Everything has been done w/th attention to qual/ty. TMs applicat/on shoed
be received favorable ~ven the excellent track record of S/r Bernard and Ms
staff. Every comm/tment made to the County since 1990 has been fulfilled.
For your con'~en/ence I have/ncluded a summary of the proposed land
use wh/ch is as follows:
1). Club Expansion Site
2). Ex,/sting Golf
3). 85 Resident/al Lots
4). New Road R/ght-Of-Ways
5). GotfMa/ntenance Site
6). Wastewater Treatment Site
7). Open Space System
17.5 acres (approved)
I39.0 acres
224.7 acres
16.6 acres
5.6 acres (approved)
4.8 acres (approved)
127.0 acres
I thank you for your consideration of th/s matter and hope for approval
of the Keswick appl/cat/on on'June 28th.
Sincerely,
June 20, 1995
Members of the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Board Member:
The purpose of this letter ss to express my support for Special Use
Permit 95-12 by Keswick Corporation and Mrs. Laura Yergan.
It is my understand/ng that the purpose of this Special Use Permit
application is to allow Keswick Corporation to incorporate several important
changes into its existing master plan. I have examined the proposed plan and
believe it to be a significant improvement over the plan approved in 1993 for
the following reasons:
1). Deletion of the nine hole golf course expansion will prevent
the clearing of mature forest which buffer the estate from both I -
64 and other residential subdivisions adjacent to Keswick.
2). Redesign of the lot layout with lkontage orientation to Club
Drive will allow for the creation of a 127 acre open space
system 85% of which protects both the 1-64 entry corridor to the
County and provides for open space along Route 744.
3). Since 1993, Keswick Corporation has acquired
approximately 17 acres which are proposed to be added to this
plan. Part of ttds acquisition will allow for a connector road
from Club Drive to the land on the east side of Broadmoor Lake.
Without this connector an additional crossing of the t00 year
flood pJ~in of Carrol Creek will be required.
4). The proposed plan does not increase residential dens/ties
beyond that which could theoretically be achieved "by right" in
the rural areas as described in the County Zoning Orrtinance
grithin the boundary, of the entire property,. This particular plan,
with 85 residential lots instead of the current 75, does however
require the Board of Supervisors to grant more development
rights than can be achieved "by right" on six parcels of record.
It appears to be in the best interest of all parties to allow for
these additional development rights. To do so wilt allow for an
approved plan which is more environmentally sensitive (deletion
of nine hole golf course expansion and 5,400 linear feet of roads
plus associated water and sexver) and does not negatively impact
the character of the neighborhood.
I also believe the Board should recognize the sign/ficant contribution
that Sir Bernard Ashley has made to the community since his purchase of
Keswick in 1990. The transformation of the old Keswick Club and creation
of a first class residential community is truly a remarkable accomplishment.
Everything has been done with attention to quality. This application should
be received favorable given the excellent track record of Sir Bernard and his
staff. Every commitment made to the County since 1990 has been fulfilled.
For your conVenience I have included a summary of the proposed land
use which is as follows:
1). Club Expansion Site
2). Existing Golf
3). 85 Residential Lots
4). New Road Right-Of-Ways
5). Golf Maintenance Site
6). Wastewater Treatment Si~e
7). Open Space System
17.5 acres (approved)
139.0 acres
224.7 acres
16.6 acres
5.6 acres (approved)
4.8 acres (approved)
127.0 acres
I thank you for your consideration of th/s matter and hope for approval
of the Keswick application on June 28th.
Sincerely,
June 20,1995
Members of the Pdbemarle County
Board of Superv/sors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Board Member:
The purpose of th/s letter is to express my support for Special Use
Permit 95-12 by Keswick Corporation and Mrs. Laura Yergan.
It is my understanding that the purpose of this Special Use Penuit
application is to allow Keswick Corporation to incorporate several important
changes into its existing master plan. I have examined the proposed plan and
believe it to be a significant improvement over the plan approved in 1993 for
the following reasons:
1). Deletion of the me hole goff course expansion will prevent
the clearing of mature forest which buffer the estate from both I -
64 and other residential subdivisions adjacent to Keswick.
2). Redesign of the tot layout with frontage orientation to Club
Drive will allow for the creation of a 127 acre open space
system 85% of which protects both the 1-64 entry corridor to the
County and provides for open space along Route 744.
3). Since 1993, Keswick Corporation has acquired
approximately 17 acres wkich are proposed to be added to this
plan. Part of this acquisition will allow for a connector road
from Club Drive to the land on the east side of Broadmoor Lake.
Without this connector an additional crossing of the 100 year
flood plain of Carrol Creek will be required.
4). The proposed plan does not increase residential densities
beyond that which could theoretically be achieved "by r/ght" in
th~ rural areas as described in the County Zoning Ordinance
w/thin the boundary.of the entire property_. This particular plan,
with 85 residential lots instead of the current 75, does however
require the Board of Supervisors to grant more development
rights than can be achieved "by right" on six parcels of record.
It appears to be in the best interest of all parties to allow for
these additional development right~. To do so will allow for an
approved plan which is more environmentally sensitive (deletion
Of nine hole golf course expansion and 5,400 linear feet of roads
plus associated water and sewer) and does not negatively impact
the character 0fthe neighborhood.
I also bel/eve the Board should recognize the si~ificant contribution
that Sir Bernard Ashley has made to the community since his purchase of
Keswick in 1990. The transformation of the old Kesw/ck Club and creation
of a first class residential community is truly a remarkable accomplishment.
Everything has been done with attention to quality. This application should
be received favorable given the excellent track record of Sir Bernard and his
staff. Every commitment made to the County since 1990 has been fulfilled.
For your convenience I have included a summary of the proposed land
use which is as follows:
1). Club Expansion Site
2). Existing Golf
3). 85 Residential Lots
4). New Road R/ght-Of-Ways
5). Golf Maintenance Site
6). Wastewater Treatment Site
7). Open Space System
17.5 acres (approved)
139.0 acres
224.7 acres
16.6 acres
5.6 acres (approved)
4.8 acres (approved)
127.0 acres
I thank you for your consideration of this matter and hope for approval
of the Keswick apphcation on June 28th.
Sincerely,
Jm~e 20, 1995
Members of the Albemarle COunty
Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Board Member:
The purpose of this letter is to express my support for Special Use
Permit 95-I2 by Keswick Corporation and Mrs. Laura Yergan.
It is my understanding that the purpose of this Special Use Permit
application is to allow Keswick Corporation to incorporate several important
changes into its existing master plan. I have ex,mined the proposed plan and
believe it to be a significant improvement over the plan approved in 1993 for
the following reasons:
1). Deletion of the nine hole goff course expansion will prevent
the clearing of mature forest which buffer the estate from both I -
64 and other residential subdivisions adjacent to Keswick.
2). Redesign of the lot layout with frontage orientation to Club
Drive w/Il allow for the creation of a 127 acre open space
system 85% of which protects both the 1~64 entry corridor to the
County and provides for open space along Route 744.
3). Since 1993, Keswick Corporation has acquired
approximately 17 acres which are proposed to be added to this
plan. Part of this acquisition will allow for a connector road
fi:om Club Drive to the land on the east side of Broadmoor Lake.
Without this connector an additional crossing of the 100 year
flood plain of Carrot Creek will be required.
4). The proposed plan does not increase residential densities
beyond that which could theoretically be achieved "by right" in
th~ rural areas as described in the County Zoning Ordinance
~thin the bom~dary of the entire property.. This particular plan,
with 85 residential lots instead of the current 75, does however
require the Board of Supervisors to grant more development
rights than can be achieved "by right" on six parcels of record.
It appears to be in the best interest of all parties to allow for
these additional development rights. To do so will allow for an
approved plan which is more environmentally sensitive (deletion
of me liole golf course expansion and 5,400 linear feet of roads
plus associated water and sewer) and does not negatively impact
the character of the neighborhood.
I also believe the Board should recognize the significant contribution
that Sir Bernard Ashley has made to the community since his purchase of
Keswick in 1990. The transformation of the old Keswick Club and creation
of a first class residential commnnity is truly a remarkable accomplistunent.
Everything has been done with attention to quality. This application should
be received favorable given the excellent track record of Sir Bernard and his
staff. Every comment made to the County since 1990 has been fulfilled.
For your convenience I have included a summary of the proposed land
use which is as follows:
1). Club Expansion Site
2). Existing Golf
3). 85 Residential Lots
4). New Road R/ght-Of-Ways '
5). GolfMa'mtenance Site
6). Wastewater Treatment Site
7). Open Space System
17.5 acres (approved)
t39.0 acres
224.7 acres
16.6 acres
5.6 acres (approved)
4,8 acres (approved)
127.0 acres
I thank you for your consideration of this matter and hope for approval
of the Keswick application on June 28th.
Sincerely,
Jane 20, 1995
Members of the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Board Member:
The purpose of this letter is to express my support for Special Use
Permit 95-12 by Kesw/ck Corporation and Mrs. Laura Yergan.
It is my understanding that the purpose of this Special Use Penuit
application is to allow Keswick Corporation to incorporate several importm~t
changes into its existing master plan. I have examined the proposed plan and
believe it to be a significant improvement over the plan approved in 1993 for
the following reasons:
1). Deletion of the me hole golf course expansion will prevent
the clearing of mature forest wh/ch buffer the estate from both I -
64 and other residential subdivisions adjacent to Keswick.
2). Redesign of the lot layout with frontage orientation to Club
Drive will allow for the creation of a 127 acre open space
system 85% of which protects both the 1-64 entry corridor to the
County and provides for open space along Route 744.
3). Since 1993, Keswick Corporation has acquired
approximately 17 acres which are proposed to be added to this
plan. Part of th/s acquisition will allow for a connector road
from Club Drive to the land on the east side of Broadmoor Lake.
Without this connector an additional crossing of the 100 year
flood plain of Carrol Creek will be required.
4). The proposed plan does not increase residential densities
beyond that wh/ch could theoretically be achieved "by right" in
the rural areas as described in the Comity Zoning Ordinance
within the boundary, of the entire property., Th/s particular plan,
with 85 residential lots/nstead of the current 75, does however
reqtt/re the Board of Supervisors to grant more development
rights than can be achieved "by r/ght" on six parcels of record.
It appears to be in the best interest of all patties to allow for
these additional development rights. To do so will allow for an
approved plan which is more environmentally sensitive (deletion
of nine hole golf course expansion and 5,400 linear feet of roads
plus associated water and sewer) and does not negatively/mpact
the character of the neighborhood.
I also believe the Board should reco~fftli;r.,e the sigrfificant contribution
that Sir Bernard Ashley has made to the commtmity since his purchase of
Keswick in 1990. The transformation of the old Keswick Club and creation
of a first class residential commun/ty is truly a remarkable accomplishment.
Everything has been done with attention to quality. This application should
be received favorable g/ven the excellent track record of Sir Bernard and his
staff. Every comm/tment niade to the County since 1990 has been fulfilled.
For your conven/ence I have included a summary of the proposed land
use which is as follows:
1). Club Expansion Site
2). Ex/sting Golf
3). 85 Resident/al Lots
4). New Road R/ght-Of-Ways
5). Golf Maintenance Site
6). Wastewater Treatment Site
7). Open Space System
17.5 acres (approved)
139.0 acres
224.7 acres
16.6 acres
5.6 acres (approved)
4.8 acres (approved)
127.0 acres
I thank you for, your consideration of this matter and hope for approval
of the Keswick application on June 28th.
Sincerely,
June 27, 1995
Members of the Albemsde County
Board of Supervisors
401 Molntira Road
Charlottesville, 'v'A 22902
Dear Board Members:
The purpose of this letter is to express my support for Specisl Use PenT, it 95-1'2 by
Kes~¢ick Corporation and Mrs. Laura Yergan.
it ~s ~y understanding that the purpose of ~nis Special Use P~rmit eppficatic~ ts to allow
have e~m~n~ ~e pro~sed plan and ~]ieve it to ~ e signifi~nt improvement over the
(4)
fo~e~ ~hich buyer ~e e~tate fr~m both I~ end other r~denti~
~dj~nf tn
creation of e 127-acre open space system, 85 percent of which, protects both the
~-84 entw corridor to the County and provides for open space. ~o~g Route 744.
Since 1993, Keswic~ Corporation has acquired approxim~ety 17 acres, which are
road ~ Club Odve to ~e land on the east side ¢ Broadmoor ~ke. %~thO~ this
~nn~:oq an additio~ ~ing of~e l~y~r flood pJa[n of Ca~l Cr~k .w~l[ be
rquir~.
The propo-~ad plan does not increase residential densities beyond that which could
theoretically be achieved "by dght" in the rural areas as described, in the County
Zonin¢ Ordinance within the boundary _of the entire property'. This paAicular p~an,
wffh 85 ¢'~sidentLal lots ins-iead of the current 75, does, how'ever, require the Board
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
July 27, 1995
Page 2
of Supervisors ~ grant more development r~ghts than can be achieved "by right" on
six parcels of reco~d. It appears to be in the best interest of ali par~ies to allow for
these addit~or~sl development dghts. To de so wilt allow Mr an approved plan which
is m~'e environmarthall~ s~nsitive [deletion of nine-hc~l~, o.~If cna~r.~-
~mpact the character of the neighborhood.
I also b~[[eve th~ Board should recognize the significant conttibulions that Sir Bernard
Ashley has ~nade to ~e community since his purchase of Keswick in 1990. The
~,-~f~rmatio,~ of the old Keswick Club and creation of a first, ess res~den+Ja~ commumty
is truly a r~markable accomplishment Everything has been done with attentior~ to qual[~.
This ~pplicafion should be received favorably given the excellent track record of Sir
Bernard and his staff. Every commitment made [o the Coun~ since 1990 has been
fulfilled.
For your convenience, a summary of the proposed tand use follows:
{~ ) Club ~F_xpansion Site
(2) Existing Golf
(3) 85 Residentiai Lots
(4) New Road Right-of-Ways
(5) Golf Maintenance Site
(6) Wastewater Treatment Site
(7) Open S~ System
I thank you
application on June
JSF/sH
t 7..6 acres (approved)
139.0 acres
:224_7 acres
16.6 acres
5.6 acres (approved)
4.8 acres (approved)
127.0 acres
for your consideration of this ma~er and hope for approvaJ of the Keswick
PAGE
June27, 1995
Members of the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Chadoffesville, VA 22902
Dear Board Members:
The puq:~se of this letter is to express my support for Special Use Permit 95-12 by
Keswick Corporation and Mrs. Laura Yergan.
It is my understanding that the purpose of this Special Use Permit application is to allow
I ~ge e~min~ ~ p~ed plan and ~lieve it to ~ a signifi~nt improvement over ~e
plan npproved in t ~3 f~ ~e following reasons:
Deletion of the nine-hole golf course expansion will prevent the clearing of mature
forest which buffer the esi:ate from both [-84 and other residential subdivisions
~dj~r~nf fn I(m.~virJ~
(2)
P~de~,ig~ of th~ lc~ la,/out with frontage ori=ntafion to (~lub Dri~ will allow for fl~
creation of a 't27-acre open spaoe system, 85 percent of which protects both the
1-64 entPy corrido~ to the County and provides for open space along Route 744.
($)
Since 1993, Keswic~ Corporation has acquired approximately 17 acres, which ere
i-~nl~-.~cl fn h~. n4H~rt fn th[.~ ~lnn Pn~ ~ ~ig n~ui~ifinn ~ll nllnw for n p~nn~nr
ro~d ~ Club D~e to ~e land on the east side of Bro~dmoor ~ke. ~o~ this
~nn~, an additi~l ~lng ~ ~e l~year flo~ plain of Ca~l Cr~k ~11 be
r~uir~.
(4)
The proposed plan does not increase residential densities beyond that which could
theoretically be achieved "by right" in the rural areas as described in the County
Zoning Ordinance within the boundary of_ the_ entire properly. This particular plan,
with 8B residential Iot~ instead of the current 75, does, however, require the Board
Ju~th ]Pox Teml~o~'ies ' ~)42-C BeTkma,r ~C)~ve · Cha~lo~_s,'ffIe, x, vn%d~ 2~901iI455 · (804) 975-5700 ' Fa,~ (804) 976-084~
_ '~- '?.--..d~,;~-~ v,,,- .~ 229021455 - (804) 975-5755
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Ju~ 27,1995
Page 2
of Supervisors to grant more development rights than can be achieved "by right" on
six parcels of record. It appears to be in the best interest of all padies to allow for
these additional development rights. To do so will allow for an approved plan which
[s more environmenfalh, sensitive (deletion of nine-hr)l~, onlf rnur.~ ~.~D~n~mn ~ncl
5,400 line. ar f~t of road plus u~.~;~atc~ wator and sewer) ,~nd does not negatively
~mpact the character of the neighborhood.
I also believe the Board should recognize the significant contributions that Sir Bernard
Ash(ay has made to the community since his purchase of Keswic~ in 1990. The
transformation of the old Keswick Club and creation of a first-class residentJa~ community
is tnJ[y a remarkable accomplishment. Everything has been done with attention to quality.
This application should be received favorably given the excel(ant track record of Sir
Bernard and his staff. Every commitment made to the County since 1990 has been
fulfilled.
For your convenience, a summary of the proposed land use follows:
(1) Club Expansion Site
(2) Existing Golf
(3) 85 Residential Lots
(4) New Road Right-of-Ways
(5) Golf Maintenance Site
(6) Wastewater Treatment Site
(7) Open Space System
t 7_g acres (approved)
139_0 acres
224.7 acres
16.6 aci'es
5.6 acres (approved)
4.8 acres (approved)
127.0 acres
JSF/srl
I thank you for your consideration of this ma,fief and hope for approval of the Keswick
application on June 28.
, Judith x
Jnne 20, 1995
Members of the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors
401 Mclnt/re Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Board Member:
The purpose of this letter is to express my support for Special Use
Permit 95-12 by Keswick Corporation and Mrs. Laura Yergan.
It is my tmderstanding that the purpose of this Special Use Penn/t
application is to allow Keswick Corporation to incorporate several important
changes into its existing master plan. I have examined the proposed plan and
believe it to be a significant improvement over the plan approved in 1993 for
the following reasons:
1). Deletion of the nine hole golf course expansion will prevem
the clearing of mature forest which buffer the estate from both I -
64 and other residential subdivisions adjacent to Keswick.
2). Redesign of the lot layout with frontage orientation to Club
Drive will allow for the creation of a 127 acre open space
system 85% of which protects both the 1-64 entry corridor to the
County and provides for open space along Route 744.
3). Since 1993, Keswick Corporation has acquired
approximately 17 acres which are proposed to be added to this
plan. Part of this acquisition will allow for a connector road
from Club Drive to the land on the east side of Broadmoor Lake.
Without this connector an additional crossing of the 100 year
flood plain of CarroI Creek will be reqthred.
4). The proposed plan does not increase residential densities
beyond that wh/ch could theoretically be achieved "by right" in
the rural areas as described in the County Zoning Ordinance
within the bom~dary..of the entire property,. This particular plan,
with 85 residential tots instead of the current 75, does however
require the Board of Supervisors to grant more development
rights than can be achieved "by right" on six parcels of record.
It appears to be in the best interest of all parties to allow for
these additional development rights. To do so will allow for an
approved plan which is more environmentally sensitive (deletion
of nine hole golf course expansion and 5,400 l/near feet of roads
plus associated water and sewer) and does not negatively impact
the character of the neighborhood.
I also believe the Board should recognize the significant contribution
that Sir Bernard Ashley has made to the community since his purchase of
Keswick in 1990. The transformation of the old Keswick Club and creation
of a first class residential community is truly a remarkable accomplishment.
Everything has been done with attention to quahty, This application should
be received favorable g/yen the excellent track record of Sir Bernard and his
staff. Every commitment made to the County since 1990 has been fulfilled.
For your conven/ence t have included a summary of the proposed land
use which is as follows:
1). Club Expansion Site
2). Existing Golf
3). 85 Residential Lots
4). New Road R/ght-Of-Ways
5). Golf Maintenance Site
6). Wastewater Treatment Site
7). Open Space System
17.5 acres (approved)
139.0 acres
224.7 acres
16.6 acres
5.6 acres (approved)
4.8 acres (approved)
127.0 acres
I th~nk you for your consideration of this matter and hope for approval
of the Keswick application on June 28th.
June 20, 1995
Members of the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Board Member:
The purpose of this letter is to express my support for Spec/al Use
Permit 95-12 by Keswick Corporation and Mrs. Laura Yergan.
It is my understanding that the purpose of this Special Use Permit
appl/cafion is to allow Keswick Corporation to incorporate several important
changes into its ex/sting master plan. I have exam/ned the proposed plan and
believe it to be a significant knprovement over the plan approved in t993 for
the following reasons:
1). Deletion of the n/ne hole golf course expansion wilt prevent
the clearing of mature forest which buffer the estate fi.om both I -
64 and other residential subdivisions adjacent to Keswick.
2). Redesign of the lot layout with fi.ontage or/entation to Club
Drive will allow for the creation of a 127 acre open space
system 85% of which protects both the 1-64 entry corridor to the
County and provides for open space along Route 744.
3). Since 1993, Keswick Corporation has acquired
approximately 17 acres which are proposed to be added to this
plan. Part of this acquisition will allow for a connector road
fi.om Club Drive to the land on the east side of Broadmoor Lake.
Without this connector an additional crossing of the 100 year
flood pla/n of Carrol Creek will be required.
4). The proposed plan does not increase residential densities
beyond that wh/ch could theoretically be achieved "by right" in
the rural areas as described in the County Zoning Ordinance
w/thin the boundary, of the entire property.. Th/s particular plan,
with 85 residential lots instead of the current 75, does however
require the Board of Supervisors to grant more development
nights than can be achieved "by right" on six parcels of record.
It appears to be in the best interest of all parties to allow for
these additional development rights. To do so will allow for an
approved plan which is more environmentally sensitive (deletion
of nine hole golf course'expansion and 5,400 linear feet of roads
plus associated water and sewer) and does not negatively/mpact
the character of the neighborhood.
I also believe the Board should recognize the si~ificant contribution
that Sir Bernard Ashley has made to the commun/ty since his purchase of
Keswick in 1990. The transformation of the old Keswick Club and creation
of a first class residential commumty is truly a remarkable accomplishment.
Everything has been done w/th attention to quality. This application should
be received favorable ~ven the excellent track record of S/r Bernard and his
staff. Every commitment made to the County since 1990 has been fulfilled.
For your convea/ence I have included a summary of the proposed land
use which is as follows:
1). Club Expansion Site
2). Existing Goff
3). 85 Residential Lots
4). New Road Right-Of-Ways
5). Golf Maintenance Site
6). Wastewater Treatment Site
7). Open Space System
17.5 acres (approved)
t 39.0 acres
224.7 acres
16.6 acres
5.6 acres (approved)
· 4.8 acres (approved)
127.0 acres
I tb~nk you for your consideration of this matter and hope for approval
of the Keswick application on June 28th.
Sincerely,
June 28, 1995
Mr. Walter F. Perkins, Chair
Albemarle County Board of Supervisiors
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Mr. Perkins:
My name is Jack Dillard and we have lived on the Keswick golf
course property for 28 years. At the time we moved there in 1967,
it was already platted and planned as a residential community.
This was close to several decades prior to the development of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan is, of course, a vital and necessary
tool for the community; however, it has been, and hopefully will
continue to be, recognized that adjustments to any such plan will
be needed. Even here in the shadow of Monticello it would not do
an injustice to Mr. Jefferson to note that our Constitution has
been amended over twenty times.
So please take into account that the Keswick golf course
property has been planned as a residential community for many
decades and the request presented to you is reasonable and
consistent with this historical fact.
Our community here has been enhanced by the Keswick Estate
group who have not sought negative changes but have been mindful of
the nature of the original large lot intent of the community and
the importance of aesthetics and the environment.
Our family urges that technical restraints not prevail over
broad based recognition of the history of the Keswick Community.
The requested adjustments, and it does seem that only "adjustments"
are being requested, are benefici-al and warranted.
Thanks for your serious consideration of our plea to approve
the request as presented by the Keswick Estate group.
ja~ ~~1 ard
e~eswick ~roperties
June 6, 1995
HAND DELIVERED_
Mr. T. Blue
Chairman
Albemarle County Planning Commission
Dear Mr. Blue,
As you may recall, I was President and Treasurer of Ashley House & Keswick Corporation, and
had the pleasure of leading on overall plans and presentation for the development of the Keswick
Estate.
The essential understanding and start point was the history of Keswick with its origins ora small
residential area in the 1940's.' Through the planning process and with a positive spirit of
cooperation from all parties, a very good solution was achieved.
Although I am no longer ih~volved with the Ashley House companies, 1 still have a str~ng
personal commitment to the success of the Estate. This is reflected by my direct association with
my own house at Keswick and investment with my company, Keswick Properties, owning t6 lots
on the Estate.
Whilst this submission has changed to reflect the revised objectives of the owner, the whole
essence of a rural community is maintained. Also, the small tncrease in the number of lots seem
entirely appropriate.
Accordingly, although in due coarse it may be appropriate to review the comprehensive plan, this
proposal is justified today. Therefore t would urge you to support and approve the submission.
Kind regards,
David p. Bowerman
CharloCre ¥. Humphfis
Forrest Fl. Marshall, Jr
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
40I Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804~ 296-5800
June 13, 1995
Charles S. Martin
Walter F. Perkins
Sall~ H. Thomas
TO THE PROPERTY OWATERS ADDRESSED:
EWC:rams
cc: Adolphus Barrett, Sr., Est.
This is to provide notice to you, as an adjacent property Owner, that
SP-95-12 - Keswick Corporation & Laura Yergan has been rescheduled for public
hearing due to an advertising error. The petition is described as Eollows:
SP-95-12. Keswick Corporation & Laura Yergan. Request for division
of land as provided in Sec 10.5 to allow 30 more lots than the total
number permitted under Sec 10.3.1 and Sec 10.3.2 on approx 535 acs
zoned RA & EC Overlay Dist. Development shall be in accord with
proposal plan. Property is location of the Keswick Country Clu~
development. TM80, Ps8,8C,8C1,SD2,SD3,8D4,Sj, 8Z,21A, 27,29,31,41,
41A,43,60,60A,61,61A1,62,69,70,70A, 90,93,94,95, 96,97,98,100,106,
109A & TM94~P42A. Rivanna Dist.
The Board of Supervisors will hear this petition on Wednesday, June 28, 1995. The
meeting will be held at 7:00 P.M., in Meeting Room ~241 (formerly Room #7),
Second Floor, County Office Building. If you should have any comments or
questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Sincerely,
Ella W. Carey,
Commonwealth Propane Inc.
William Winsson Harrod; Heirs of
William Hughes
Lewis W Johnson, Est
Aurelius K Lewis, Life Estate
Thomas F, III or Patricia R McGraw
Louis A & Margare~ A Ragland
Eleanor Robinson
George R Sr & Sally R Smith
Willie C or Bettye E Anderson
Hazel B Davis or Rosetta D Lambert
William A & Alice M Ford
Fleming S Hawley
Douglas L Key
Jeanetta D Clark
Jean Joel or Lorenza Lee Fields
James R & Pauline p Hughes
Clarence E Johnson
Keswick Hunt Club
William M or Jewel C Mason
Edith H Mills
James S & Dorothy M Richardson
Maggie p Smith
Arnette Anderson, Life Est
Percy Jr & Eliz M Branch
Phillip R or Ida Louise Dyer
Kenneth G Jr or Vicki H Hale
Lewis W Johnson, Est
Harry C Jr McCray & Marybess M Johnson,
Florence Miller, Est Trs
James Ervin or Dorothy Virginia Morris
Printed on recycled paper
June 13, 1995
Page 2
cc:
Richard Nightengale, Est
Edith Peoples
Charles E or~%nna Belle Robinson
Neal T Rudolph
James E or Pearl S WashingTon
CSX Transportation
John H or Dorothy Q Chappell
Rebecca B Criszer
Jack H & Mildred N Dillard
Judith S Fox
Richard E or Dawn Gibson
Jasper L & Mallie p Haynes
Gary Wayne or Doresa Lea Howard
John A & A~nes R Hughes
Panos or Patricia N Ignatiadis
Charles D or Susan H Kincannon
Donald Walter & Carol F Kupke
Joan Greims Nolan
Gregory Sr or Barbara Pendleton
Hans Olay & SigridAnna Margare~a
Riddervold
Paul S or Cynthia L Roberts
Sixty-Four 616 Land Tr~s~
Martin L & Sherrard H Sullivan
Richard A Tinsler or Francis R
Tinsler or Annie Tinsler
Edward G & Rosemary B Williams
Florence M Yannios
V Wayne Cilimberg
Barbara M Patterson
Gus~ave H Rathe, Jr or Lesslie A
Crowell
Edward F or Patricia R Schuler
John D Butler
Brian M or Melba M Campbell
John E Clarkson
Frank or Emily K Decicco
Edith M & Gregory & Michael Durrett Et
A1
Stephanie G Hawranke
Richard E & Arnona Horowitz
Chrissopher Chapman Hughes Est
Vincent D & Myrtle L Hughes
Karen S Johnson
Ralph W or Cornelia E Kirtle
Peadar N or Janpin p Little
Edna Lee PendleEon or Roy Lewis
Dennis N or Eunice Ragland
Edward F or Patri~ia R Schuler
Thomas F or Joan M Sheeran
Julie T Stein
Gordon L Wheeler
Elton W or Beverley R Turner
Gordon L or Hildreth M Wheeler
Robert A & Elizabeth Wilson
Colonial Baptist Church
Yolanda Hipski
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mctntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (8041 296-5800
June 13, t995
CharIes S. Martin
Waiter F. Perkins
Sally H. Thomas
Mr. Pete Bradshaw
Keswick Corporation
701 Club Drive
Keswick, VA 22947
Dear Mr. Bradshaw:
This letter is to notify you that SP-95-12 - Keswick Corporation & Laura
Yergan has been rescheduled for public hearing due uo an advertising error.
The request will k~ heard by the Board of Supervisors on WEDNESDAY, June 28,
1995.
The meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room $241 (formerly Room #7),
Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road~ Charlottesville,
Virginia.
YOU OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESE~Ff AT THIS MEETING.
We are sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused. If you should have
any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
EWC:mms
cc: V. Wayne Cilimberg
Yolanda Hipski
Laura Yergan
ncerely,
Printed on recycled paper
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
YOLANDA HIPSKI
MAY 30, 1995
JUNE 21, 1995
(SP 95-12) KESWICK ACOUISITION CORPORATION AND LAURA
YERGAN
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant requests the Board of Supervisors allow a total of
30 small lots or 24 more total lots (counting 21 acre residue parcels) beyond those allowed
by-right on si:~ (6) existing parcel. Over the entire prope~y, the applicant requests a total of six
(6) more small lots, but no more total lots (counting 21 acre residue parcels), than allowed
by-right. These lots are to be served by an existing central sewage treatment plant and all
existing central well system (see attachment A).
This proposal adds five parcels of record, totalling approximately 15.929 acres, which were not
part of SP-92-58 Keswick Acquisition Corporation. The applicant proposes to delete two parcels
which were subject to SP-92-58 Keswick Acquisition Corporation. The applicant has deleted the
nine hole golf course expansion originally approved under SP 92-59 Keswick Acquisition
Corporation, but will retain the two floodplain crossings approved under SP 92-57 Keswick
Acquisition Corp.
This proposal will allow a total of eighty-eight (88) tots with eighty-six (86) proposed as small
residential lots. The remaining two lots shall contain the golf maintenance facility and the
wastewater treatment facility. This proposal totals approximately 515 acres and will be
comprised of approximately 224 acres devoted to development lots, 10.354 acres devoted to the
golf maintenance facility and the wastewater treatment facility, 16.6 acres devoted to roads,
approximately 139 acres devoted to the existing golf course and approximately 126 acres
devoted to open space. Approximately 9.89 acres are currently under the control of Laura
Yergan. The remainder is owned by Keswick Acquisition Corporation and the golf course is
under the control of Keswick Club LP.
PETITION: SP-95-12 Keswick Corn_ oration & Laura Yergan - Special Use Permit (Section
10.2.2.28 of Zoning Ordinance) for division of land as provided in Section 10.5 to ~llow more
lots than the total number permitted under Sections 10.3.1 and 10.3.2. Developmefit shall be in
accord with proposal plan covering approximately 515 acres, zoned PA, Rural Areas, and EC,
Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Property, described as Tax Map 80, Parcels 8, 8C1, 8D2,
8D3, 8D4, 8J, 8C, 8Z, 2lA, 27, 29, 31, 41, 43, 4lA, 60, 60A, 61Al, 61, 62, 69, 70, 70A, 90, 93,
94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 106, 109A and Tax Map 94, Parcel 42A, is the location of the Keswick
Country Club developmenT. The applicant proposes 30 more small lots and 24 more total tots
than allowed by-right on Tax Map 80, Parcels 8, 8J, 61, 62, 70 and 109A and a total of 6 more
small lots, but no more total lots, than allowed by-right over the entire property. This property is
located in the Rivauna Magisterial District and is not in a designated growth area (Rural Area 2).
CHARACTER OF AREA: The terrain of the Keswick property is mixed with flat to rolling
hillside and a mixture of open and wooded areas. Carroll Creek and an unnamed tributary both
contain one hundred year floodplains. Carroll Creek is a perennial stream traversing the entire
length of the property. The tributary stream is perennial to a point near the main Inn structure.
Some critical slopes are located along the stream valleys. There are two existing floodplain
crossings on this property. Areas of soil in this area have been identified (Manteo 51) with an
extremely shallow depth (10 to 20 inches). The stream valleys contain soils which flood and are
considered wetland. The National Wetlands Inventory show several wetlands on the site. The
Open Space Plan identifies areas along these streams as a "major stream valley".
The original Inn, Villa Crawford, was built circa 1910 and is an unusual example of eclectic
Georgian Reviyai/Italian Villa architecture. During the forties, this structure was converted into
a country club. Although not individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the
structure is considered a "contributing building" for the Southwest Mountain National Register
Rural Historic District. The Open Space Plan identifies a small portion of the property, which
includes the Inn, as a "registered historic property".
In addition to the Inn, the site currently contains the existing country club and an eighteen hole
golf course. There are approximately 35 existing parcels which were platted prior to the current
Zoning Ordinance which are served by the existing private roads These parcels are not part of
this application. Since the 1992 Special Use permit approvals, the applicant has constructed
Country Club Drive and has made substantial improvemems to the existing facilities.
The Keswick area consists mostly of farms, large estates and large lot developments with
scattered single family residences. There are also a significant number of small lots in the area,
particularly along Hacktown Road (Route 744- see attachment B). The Keswick "center",
located at the intersection of Routes 22 and 731, is approximately one-half mile to the north of
the main country club entrance. The Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District is located to
the north/northwest of this site and contains a small portion of this property. Tax Map 80 Parcel
61D, located east of this property and adjacent to the Yergan property, is located within the
Keswick Ag.ricultural/Forestai district. The majority of the Keswick Agriculturai/Forestal
District is located on the northern side of Route 22.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
There is extensive history related to the Inn and to the subdivision. The following is a summary
of the most applicable:
(SP 92-58) Keswick Acquisition Corporation: Proposal to allow a subdivision of 280.2
acres (thirty parcels of record) into a total of 75 lots. This request included a 15.1-456
review and Resolution for SCC Application for expansion of the existing sewage
treatment plant. On January 13, 1993, the Board of Supervisors unanimously approved
this request.
2
(SP-92-57~ Keswick Acquisition Corn_ oration: Proposal to allow two floodplain
crossings of Carroll Creek This request was approved on January t3, 1995 by the Board
of Supervisors.
(SP-92-59~ Keswick Acquisition Corn_ oration: Proposal to expand the eighteen hole golf
course to twenty seven hole. This request was approved on January 13, 1993 by the
Board of Supervisors.
SP-85-53'} Tom Curtis: Proposal to allow the subdivision of 37 single family residential
lots on 284 acres located south and east of the golf course. Approved by the Board of
Supervisors on September 4, 1985. This action required Health Department approval of
two sel~tic fields locations on each proposed lot. The lots were never platted.
(SP-92-21¥Keswick Acquisition Corporation: Request to amend Condition 5 of
SP-85-53 in order to allow Club Drive as a private road rather than a public road. The
Board of Supervisors approved this request on June 17, 1992.
Central Sewer System Review: On June 4, 1986, the Board of Supervisors approved a
request pursuant to county Code 10-18 to establish a central sewer system to serve 43 lots
as well as the club and inn facilities
Central Well System Review: On November 14, 1984, the Board of Supervisors ~
approved a request pursuant to County Code Section 10-18 to construct a central well
system. A request to construct a third well was approved on the Board's Consent Agenda
on October 31, 1990. The system was designed to serve 56 residential lots and the club
and inn facilities.
(CPA-84-1D Keswick Count _ry Land Trust: Request for a resolution'~ofintent to study an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to allow for the development of the PUD (ZMA
84-20) was denied by the Planning Commission on October 9, 1984. The applicant
continued to pursue the rezoning request after denial of this request. The developmem
proposed as a part of the CPA review was similar to the PUD plan.
(ZMA-84-20~ Keswick Country Club Land Trust: Request to rezone 491 acres from RA
to PUD was denied by the Board of Supervisors on June 26, 1985. The p, lan proposed the
development of 147 single family detached dwelling units of which 80 unit~ were located
in one cluster with a total acreage of 35 aces (density of 2.28 d.u./ac) and th~ remaining
67 units/lots totalled 204 acres (average tot size of 3.05 acres). The gross density of the
proposal was one dwelling unit per 3.3 acres. Twenty six of the lots were proposed to be
served by a central water system and individual septic tank systems. The other lots were
to be served by central water and central sewer systems.
3
RECOMMENDATION:
After its analysis, staff opinion is that the factors unfavorable to the request are significant as
compared to those favorable to the request, and, therefore, staff recommends denial of
SP-95-012.
STAFF COMMENT:
This portion of the report will be presented in sections as follows:
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
~Review of Development Rights;
Special Use Permit Criteria for Subdivisions in the Rural Areas;
Extension of Central Utilities and the Keswick Jurisdictional Area;
Comprehensive Plan Issues Relative to the Subdivision;
Summary of Issues/Recommendations/Actions to be Taken;
Recommended Actions;
Review of Development Rights
This application must be reviewed under the current Zoning Ordinance which makes no
provisions for either lot size variation nor rearrangements of lots fi'om multiple parcels
other than by the Rural Preservation Development (RPD) option (Section 10.3.3). Staff
has discussed the possibility of utilizing a RPD with the applicant during both the t992
review and the current application review. For several reasons, staff and the applicant
have agreed that an RPD proposal for this development would not satisfy the criteria for
the RPD option as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance.
The Zoning Ordinance does allow for more lots than allowed by-right on a barticular
parcel(s). Section 10.5.2.1 and 10.5.2.1 a. states:
"10.5.2.1
The board of supervisors may authorize the issuance of a special use
permit for:
More lots than the total number permitted under section 10.3.1 and section
10.3.2; provided that no such permit shall be issued for property within the
boundaries for the watershed of any public drinking water supply
Impoundment;"
4
The Zoning Ordinance requires a parcel by parcel review for those parcels on which more
lots than allowed by-right are proposed. The applicant is requesting a total of 30 more
small lots or 24 more total lots on Tax Map 80, Parcels 8, 8J, 61, 62, 70, and 109A (See
Attachment C). In summary, the applicant proposes the following additional lots:
TAX MAP/ EXISTING ALLOWABLE TOTAL ADDITIONAL ! ADDITIONAL
PARCEL DEVELOPMENT 21 ACRE NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENT TOTAL
RIGHTS RESIDUE SMALL LOTS RIGHTS LOTS
PARCELS (PROPOSED) REQUIRED
8 5 2 13 8 6
8J 1 0 2 1 1
"61 15 1 11 6 ' 5
62 5 ~ 2 12 7 5
70 5 1 10 5 4
109A 6 0 9 3 3
TOTAL 27 6 57 30 24
To provide a comprehensive approach for the Keswick property, the applicant has incorporated
the proposal for the aforementioned parcels with Tax Map 80, Parcels 8C1, 8D2, 8D3, 8D4, 8C,~
8Z, 2lA, 27, 29, 31, 41, 43, 4lA, 60, 60A, 61Al, 69, 70A, 90, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 106,
and Tax Map 94 Parcel 42A as one request. The applicant did not account for development
potential (small lots and large lots) on the golf course parcel, Tax Map 80 Parcel 8Z. The
applicant has indicated this parcel shall be platted as Open Space.
The Zoning Administrator has made an official determination regarding the total number of
development rights for the entire project (see attachment D). When considering the entire
property, the applicant is not creating more total lots than could be possible in by-right small lots
and 21 acre lots over the entire development. The proposal does exceed the number of by-right
small lots allowed over the entire property by six. In consideration of alternative rural
subdivision proposals such as proposed in the application, staff has historically reviewed a
theoretical conventional subdivision of the same area m determine that the conventional
subdivision of an equal number of lots is achievable. A conventional subdivision has not been
provided by the applicant for this request. However, based on the information provided for the
review of SP-92-58, physical site characteristics and the existence of a central water and sewer
system, staff believes a conventional subdivision is achievable.
II. Special Use Criteria for Subdivisions in the Rural Areas
The existing criteria (Section 10.5.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance) utilized in detenmning if
the requested proposal is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood is essentially the
same criteria utilized in the 1985 review of SP-85-53 and in the 1992 review of SP-92-58.
The first four criteria are aimed specifically at whether the property has
agricultural/forestal significance. Criteria 5, 6, 7, and 8 are directed mainly at the
potential of increased development.
The size. shape topography and existing vegetation of the property in relation to
its snitabili _ty for agricultural or forestal production as evaluated by the United
States Department of Agricultural Soil Conservation Service or the Virginia
Department of Forestry; and,
The actual suitabiliw of the soil for agricultural or forestal nroduction as the same
shall be shown on the most recent published maps of the United States
Department of Agricultural Soil Conservation Service or other source deemed of
equivalent reliability by the Soil Conservation Service.
The site consist of gentle slopes ranging from 2 to 15 percent. Areas along
,streams and bluffs consist of hilly and steep slopes with some sl6pes in excess of
twenty five (25) percent. The majority of soils on the site are Manteo Chaunery
SilfLoam. This is a very shallow soil with bedrock at 10 to 20 inches. The
predominate land use except for the golf course is woodland of marginal quality.
Due to the soil's shallow depth and low fertility, the area is not considered to be a
high quality hardwood producing soil and agricultural potential is limited to
primarily low grade pasture land. The applicant's soil analysis estimates only 2%
of the area in proposed lots, golf course and roads are prime agricultural soils and,
in fact, approximately 80% of the site consists of soils which have significant
limitations for agricultural and forestal use.
The historical commercial a_m/cultural or forestal uses of the nropertv since 1950,
to the extent that is reasonably available.
The County land use record show that none of the property involved in this
proposed development is currently under preferential land use taxation. The
applicant has stated there is no historical record of agricultural or forestal uses of
the property since 1950 with the exception of 29 acres formerly owned by CSX
which appears to have been clear cut and planted in Loblolly pine approximately
ten years ago.
If located in an agricultural or forestal area. the probable effect of the proposed
development on the character of the area. For the purposed of the section, a
property shall be deemed to be in an agricultural or forestal area if fifty (50)
percent or more of the land within one (1 ~ mile of the border of such property has
been in commercial agricultural or forestal use within five (5/years of the date of
this application for special use permit. In makina this determihation, mountain
ridges, major streams and other physical barriers which detract from the
cohesiveness of an area shall be considered.
Staff analysis indicated the property is not located in an agricultural or forestal
area as only 46% of land within a one mile radius of this site is in agricultural or
forestal use.
6
The relationship of the nropertv in re~ard to develooed rural areas. For thc
purposes of this section, a propert9 shall be deemed to be located in a developed
rural area if fifty (50'} percent or more of the land within one (1'} mile of tl~,,',
boundary of such property was in parcels of record of five (5'} acres or less on th,,
adoption date of this ordinance. In making this determination, mountain ridges.
major streams and other physical barriers which detract from the cohesiveness of
an area shall be considered
Staff analysis indicates the property is not located in a developed rural area as
only 20% of the land within a one mile radius of this site consist of parcels less
than five acres in size, The applicant's letter of justification states 80% of the
parcels within a one mile radius of the site are less than five acres.
The relationship of the Cronosed develonment to e ' ' ·
_ _ mst~ng and nroposed populat~o.
~centers. services and employment centers, nrunertv w~th~n areas described
below shall be deemed in proximity to the area or use described;
Within one mile roadway distance of the urban area boundary as described
in the comnrehensive plan:
Within one-half mile roadway distance of a community boundary as
described in the comprehensive plan:
Within one half mile roadway distance of a villane as described in th~,
comprehensive nlan. ~
This proposal is not witlfin a one mile roadway distance to an urban area boundary
as described in the comprehensive plan. This proposal is not within a one-half
mile roadway distance of a community boundary as described in the
comprehensive plan. This proposal is within a one-half mile roadway distance of
the Village of Rivarma as described in the comprehensive plan.
The probable effect of the proposed development on canital improvemem,~
pro~amming ~n regard to increased provision of services.
Given that the property could be divided into a combination of by-right small lots
and 21 acre lots that would equal the number of lots proposed in this request,
there is no theoretical increase in the number of potential dwellings and residents
to be served. '
The traffic ~enerated from the proposed development would not. in the opinion
the Virginia Department of Transportation:
Occasion the need for road improvement;
_Cause a tolerable road to be a non-tolerable road:
Increase traffic on an existing non-tolerable road.
7
Route 616 is considered non-tolerable; Route 22 is non-tolerable to the east, but
tolerable to the west. Although there will be an increase of traffic by three
hundred (300) vehicle trips per day, Virginia Department of Transportation has
not indicated that this proposal shall occasion the need for road improvements.
In summary, this proper~y does not appear well-suited to agricnitural/forestal uses
and there has been no recent use of this property for agricultural or forestal
purposes. In addition, staff analysis indicates the property is not located in an
area of predominantly agricultural or forestal land uses. The property is not
located in a developed rural area, but is within une-half mile roadway distance of
the Village of Rivanna.
III.
Area and Health Regulations; Extension of Central Utilities and the~Keswick
Jurisdictional Area
For rural developmem on central utilities such as Keswick, staff has sought
demunstmtion that each proposed lot is self-supporting with two approvable drainfield
locations. The applicant did not provide such demonstration with the review of SP.92.58
and has not done so for this application.
During review of (SP-92-58), the Board of Supervisors reviewed and approved the
request to serve the proposed lots with the existing sewage treatment plant and central
well system. Specifically, the Board of Supervisors revised condition 6 as approved by~
the Planning Commission to state:
"The service for Keswick Utility Company to include all those parcels of land which are
contiguous to the land currently owned by Keswick Corporation which are bounded
within the larger area of State Route 616, State Route 731, State Route 744, Interstate
Route 64 and the CSX Railroad right-of-way. Reference is made to a letter and map from
Pete Bradshaw dated January 13, 1993 (copy attached, See Attachment E)."
This approval did not restrict the total number of counections. The applicant does not
intend to expand beyond the area outlined in condition 6. Therefore, additional review of
this extension is not needed by the Planning Commission. However, should the applicant
choose to add another central well, the Board of Supervisors must re-review this as a
request for central utilities.
IV. Comprehensive Plan Issue Relative to the Subdivision
This property is designated as Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan. The nearest
Growth Area is Rivanna Village on the south side of Route 250 East. The Plan states,
"Areas north of Interstate 64 have historic/scenic mgnificance to the County and region ....
preserve and protect these resources, do not expand the Village boundaries north of U.S.
250 East...." (Rivanna Village Amendments)
8
The Open Space Plan indicates that two major stream valleys traverse the property. Both
Carroll Creek and an unnamed tributary include 100 year floodplain and Water Resource
Protection Areas. In addition, 1-64 is an adjacent designated Entrance Corridor, and the
SW Mountain National Register Rural Historic District is adjacent to the north. This area
is not shown as Important Farmlands and Forests.
This proposal conflicts with several statements in the Comprehensive Plan. The
previously approved plan under SP 92-058 also conflicted with these statements:
Rural Development ~oal: "Discourage rural residential development other than dwellings
related to bona fide agricultural/forestal use. The limited amount ofresidenfial
development which is permitted in the Rural Areas shall be located in a manner to
minimize impact on rural resources and to minimize conflict with agricuttural/forestal
activities." (p.203)
Objective: "Do not allow residential development in the Rural Areas which requires
central water and sewer systems." (P.206)
Residenti- 1 Scales: "A series of scales for residential development is provided below. As
with density standards, these recommendations cannot be considered as absolutes, but
should be regarded as guiding principles ....
Limit rural residential developments to a maximum of twenty dwelling units ....
Develop conventional developments at up to seventy-five dwelling units....The
appropriate locations for conventional developments are designated Villages,
Communities, and the Urban Area ....
Require unified planned developments for projects with seventy-five or more
dwelling units .... The appropriate locations for unified planned developments are
designated Communities and the Urban Area, and in those Villages that can
support this scale of development." (p. 155)
Further, the Rural Development section of the Plan discusses the use of the special use permit
process for lot size changes and rearrangements, which "enhance the marketability of a property
for homesites, and thus are contrary to Rural Area goals." (p.204) A strategy states: "Permit
changes in lot size and rearrangement of lots on multiple parcels only if the applicant can
demonstrate that the new arrangement is clearly superior because it l~rovides an environmental or
public benefit." (p.205) Another strategy, "Permit the option to develop additional development
right lots in lieu of dividing the residue acreage ~nto larger parcels, provided the residue acreage
is not developed nor further divided under conservation or open space easement or other similar
perpetual restrictions...." (p. 205), resulted in the current Rural Preservation Development option.
The above points considered, this proposal is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the
following reasons:
1. The proposal relies on central sewer and water systems.
9
The scale and character of the proposed development are not consistem with the Rural
Area designation, and are more consistent with a location within a Village Growth Area.
This area has been specifically described previously as not suitable for consideration as a
Growth Area (CPA-89-01).
The proposal cannot meet the design standards for Rural Preservation Development
option.
Compared to the previously approved plan, the proposed arrangement of open space is
improved. The open space now provides a buffer from Interstate 64 and other adjacent
roads, and protects most of the area designated in the Open Space Plan as Major Stream
Valley. If the proposed plan is approved, the remaining lots which cohtain lO0-year
floodplain or Resource Protection Areas (RPA's) should be protected by the conveyance
of ad. di!ional open space area and/or resource protection easements, as required on the
prem0us approval.
VI. Summary'of Issues/Recom~nendations/Actions to be Taken
The application plan has been revised to address staff recommendation as to physical
layout, including compliance with the recommendations of the Open Space Plan. The
major issue to be addressed by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors is
the request for additional development rights for the six parcels identified on the chart
found on page 5 and the overall relationship to the Comprehensive Plan in allowing a
development of a Village scale in an area not recommended for such.
Staffhas identified the following issues which are favorable and unfavorable to this
request:
Favorable
Approval of this application would allow the property to develop under a cohesive
application plan. This would include approximately thirty four (34) percent of the
property being placed in open space (this does not include the golf course which
consists of another ./- 139 acres).
This proposal meets most of the special use permit criteria for subdivisions in the
rural area, including its location not being in an area of predominantly agricultural
or forestal land uses and its land not appearing to be well suited for agricultural or
forestal uses. '
Provision has been made for compliance with the Open Space Plan
recommendations (Condition 5).
Preservation of the scenic qualities as viewed from Interstate 64 may be provided
by platting such areas in this development as open space.
The proposal stays within the previously approved area of central water and sewer
service.
10
Unfavorable
The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed lots are self-supporting with
on-site septic drainfields.
The scale of the development is of a Village Growth Area scale rather than a
Rural Area scale in an area within close proximity of the Southwest Mountains
Rural Historic District.
Considering the inconsistency of this proposal with the Comprehensive Plan, this
proposal has not been considered within the context of an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan.
.The proposal could not be made as a Rural Preservation Development, the
idesirable alternative subdivision approach for the Rural Area.
A factor ndither favorable nor unfavorable is that while this is not a developed rural area
in general, the Keswick development exists now as an approved project ora significant
potential development of lots on central utilities.
This proposal results in both a greater number and rearrangement of small lots, along
with designated open space areas, in lieu of a conventional subdivision of lesser number
of small lots combined with 21 acm residue parcels. It does not result in more total lots
than could otherwise be theoretically subdivided and meets most special use permit
criteria for subdivision in the Rural Area; However, it could not be proposed as a Rurala
Preservation Development and, of significant concern, results in a village scale of
development inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives and strategies for
this area. Staff believes that such a proposal should be considered through analysis for
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan as to its overall relationship and affect to the area
and consideration as to the appropriate designation of the area. Absent that analysis, staff
cannot support the special use permit request on its own. Should the Board choose to
approve this request, staffrecommends appropriate language be included in the
Comprehensive Plan now under review and revision to address this area.
VI. Recommended Action~
Based on Comprehensive Plan considerations, staffdoes not recommend approval of
SP-95-02. Should the Board of Supervisors approve this request, staff recommends the
following conditions of approval:
Development of this subdivision shall be in general accordance with the Keswick
Estate Application Plan dated November 28, 1994 and revised April 3, 1995 and
May 1, 1995;
Floodplain crossings to allow private road construction in accordance with
SP-92-059;
3. Water Resources Manager approval of a water quality impact assessment;
11
Compliance with State Corporation Commission requiremems for water and
sewer utility services;
In the review of future plats and plans, provisions shall be made for protection of
streams valley areas located on proposed lots by the conveyance of additional
open space and/or resource protection easements to the homeowners association
or other entity agreeable to the developer and the County for the purpose of
permanent protection of these areas.
ATTACHMENTS:
A Applichnt's Proposal
B Tax Map Parcel/Location Map
C Tax Map Parcel Analysis (by Applicant)
D Memo 15om Jan Sprinkle to Yolanda Hipski dated April 21, 1995
E Keswick Utility jurisdictional Area
A:\SP9512-2.RPT
12
KESWICK
IATTACHMENT A I
JPage 11
701 COUNTRY CLUS DRIVE POST OFFICE BOX 68 KESWICK VIRGINIA 22947
TELEPHONE 804 979 3440 FACSIMILE 804 979.3457
April 5, 1995
Ms. Yolanda Hipski
Planner
Albemarle County Department of Planning and Community Deve}o~ment
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 ~
RE: SP-94-39
Based on our numerous meetings and conversations with you and other staff members of the
departments of Planning and Zoning, Keswick Corporation and Mrs. Laura Yergan are ~
hereby a[nending our application of November 28, 1994 to request a new Special Use Permit
which will, if approved, allow for the development of 34 existing parcels of record presently
owned or under contract by Keswick Corporation (please see attached table) inclusive of the~
existing 18 hole golf course unto the following land use categories:
1. Eighty-five (85) residential building lots containing a total of
2. An existing 18 hole golf course
224.710 acres
3. New streets or roadways
4. Golf Maintenance Site
5. Wastewater Treatment Site
6. Open Space System
Total acreage covered by application
139.049 acres
16.600 acres
5.567 acres
~/.787 acres
126.809 acres
517.520 acres
The purpose of this Special Use Permit is to allow Keswick Corporation to incorporate
several important changes into its exist_ing (approved) master development plan.
2
Description of Request
The proposed changes to the existing Master Plan are as follows:
1. Deletion of the nine hole golf course expansion from the Master Plan.
2. Redesign of the existing approved lot layout plan into a subdivision of approximately
224.710 acres into 85 residential lots with an adjoining open space system of approximately
126.809 acres.~ Six parcels of record (TMP 80-90,93,94,95 & 98) have been added to the
plan since the approval of SP-92 58. These acquisitions total 16.994 acres and together have
7 development rights. It is proposed that these additional five parcels be incorporated into
the Keswick Estate Master Plan and have access to the central water and sewer service
provided by Keswick Utility System.
3. Although not anticipated in tile current master development plan, Keswick Corporation
proposes to retain the right provided for under the existing approved Master Plan to cross
Caroll Creek at a point described as Cedar Lane on the existing plan.
4..Rec°rdati°n of separate parcels for both the wastewater treatment plant and the golf
Inamtenance facility.
Please note that Mrs. Laura Yergan has joined with Keswick Corporation as co-applicant for
this Special Use Permit. Mrs. Yergan currently owns TMP 80 parcels 93.94 & 95
comprising 10.636 acres. This application, among other things, includes the subdivision of
Mrs Yergan's land into four lots with Mrs Yergan retaining two for her own account.
Keswick Corporation will, under a separate agreement, purchase the remaining two lots
which will be added ti) the Keswick Estate.
Justification for Request
This plan provides for the elimination of approximately 5,420 linear feet of loads and a
significant amount of sewer line construction with all its associated grading, learth moving and
excavation This results in a significant decrease in negative impact to the environment in
comparison to the existing approved Master Plan. This plan does not increase the density of
development beyond that which could theoretically be achieved "by right" in the rural areas
of the County. As you will note on the attached table, exclusive of file golf course (TMP 80
8Z) there are 82 developlnent rights and 6 residues on 33 parcels of record within the
boundary as defined in this application. Keswick Corporation simply is requesting that the
Board of Supervisors, through their power of legislative description (described in Section
10.5.2.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance), allow for more tlevelopment rights
than can be achieved by right on 6 existing parcels of record. Of the remaining 27 parcels
included in this application Keswick Corporation is requesting the s~me number of
I ATTACHMENT A I
3
development lots as can be achieved by right on 13 existing parcels of record and fewer
development lots than can be achieved by right on 14 parcels of record. In so doing the
Board will enable Keswick Corporation to realize a development plan which is far superior to
the existing plan in both its sensitivity to the environment and its economm feasibility. This
plan will also eliminate 3 nonconforming parcels.
With respect to the conformance of this plan to Section 10.5.2.1 b 1-8 and 31.2.4.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance I make reference to my letter of justification for SP 92r57, 58 & 59 to Mr.
Wayne Cilimberg dated Septemher 28, 1992 and a memorandum of response to the Staff
Report for the~same dated December 1, 1992 copies of which are hereby attached for your
rewew.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely
Director of Real Estate Development and Planning
Keswick Corporation
APR ~$ 1995
ZONING ~J~ [PART~4Eb~r£
l
DEVRTS.XLS
' Keswick Estate Development Rights/Lot Compadson
80-8 West 22.z 5
80-8 E~t ~2.5 5+2[~s___
-: 8 (0r 6 ~ 2 residues ~re ~un{ed) _
80-8D2{ 2.0~3'
L _3.8
80-8D3 96
80-8D4 ~ J 2.014 .... ~ 1 0
~o-~c J~ ~ o -2
B0-SZ 139.049 .......... O~ ~ISTIN~ ~OLF ~URSE
~0-21A 2 I 0 -1
80-2~-- 0.852 1 0
80-41 3.49 1 .....
80-43 2.33 1
0
8~-jlA 2
80-60 8.057 4
80~-- ...... 4--228
80-62 57.44 5+2res. 11 6 {or 4 if residues are ~unted)
~0-93 3.09 .....................................................................
~ ............... ~75~ ....... ~ .................. ~ 5 ...........................................................
7fl' 5
~0-97 ~ O. 3 -2
80-98 ~__ 4.59~ 2
80-100 ~ 2.19
80-106 5.18 2 1 -1
~0-10gA .... 2~28~ _~._ 9 3
~-~ ~l.3s 5 - ~- -5
Total 518.964 82+6res. 85 More dev. ~. reqyest~ on 6 par~ s
....... . ................................... ~erd~v. Hs. ~quested on ~ 4 parcel~-~
~o chan'ge on 13 parcels
Page1 j
$
~ATTACHMENT B~]
Laura Yergan
S~
~\~ SP-95-12
Keswick Corporation
& Laura
Page
ATTACHMEHT
3.687 [o
4.379
5-l-2re~l.
1
1
2
0.852i 1
2.33
5o5
1 .'(1
3.09
4.595
1
4
2
5
5~ltes.
2
5
1
0
o
o
D'
D
12
2
10
4
i
:
Lots Requested c
~ NG
i-1
t-1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department o{ Zoning
40I IVlclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia ~902-4596
(804) 296-5875 FAX (8041 972-4060
TDD (804] 972-4012
MEMORANDUM --
TO: yol~anda Hipski, Planner
FROM; .lan Sprinkle, Zoning Assistant
DATE: April 21, 4995
RE: SP-95-08, Keswick Estate Development Rights
After consulting with Amelia, the determination is that the goIf maintenance facility
parcel andthe wastewater treatment plant parcel do require one development right
eaoh to meet {}'10.3.1 relating to the division of a parcel into lots. This wil mean that the
table submitted with the SP should be revised to state 87 total proposed lots, two of
which are for non-residential uses. They should be changed for parcels 60A and 62
under the column proposed lots (as one proposed non-residential lot for each) and also
under the column showing lots deleted The other summaries will remain the same.
With the above changes noted, we concur with the applicant on this table regarding the
development rights. We believe that this was the last determination which was needed
for you to process this request. If there is any other zoning issue which you need
resolved, please contact me.
I ATTACHMENT EI
IPage 11
KESWICK
lanuary 13, 1993
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg
Director of Planning and
Community !Development
Albemarle County
401 Mclnlim Road
Chadouesville, VA 22901
Re: Keswick Utility lurisdictional Area
Dear Wayne: Commission action
jurisdictional Area to include
We a~'e hereby requesting an amendment to condition six in your Planning
letter dated December !6, 1992. We propose the Keswick Utility
all those parcels of land which are contiguous to the lands cun-ently owned by Kes~ick
Corporation which are bounded within the larger area of State Route 616, State Route 73 l, State
Route 744, Interstate Route 64 and the CSX Railroad right of way
We thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
/,//pete Bradshaw
Deyelopmem Planner
Keswick Corporation
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 584~3 FAX (804~ 972-4060
ME'ORA ND UM
Charles S. Martlr
W~Jter F. Perkins
Sally H. Thomas
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Melvin Breeden, Direcmor of Finance
Elis W. Carey, Clerk ~0~-~
November 7, 1995
Jefferson-Madison Regional Library
At its meeting on June 28, 1995, the Board of Supervisors approved an
additional S24,289 for the Library, s FY 1995-96 budget mo fully staff the
Northside Library° Attached is the signed appropriation form.
EWC:mms
Attachment
CC:
Richard E. Huff, II
Roxarn/e White
Printed on recycled paper
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR 95/96
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
NUMBER
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
95033
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
X
NO
GENERAL
FUND
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING TO FULLY STAFF NORTHSIDE LIBRARY FOR FY 95/96.
EXPENDITURE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
11~0~7302070C008 NORTHSIDE LIBRARY $24,289.00
TOTAL
$24,289.00
AMOUNT
REVENUE DESCRIPTION
2100051000510100 INMATE TELEPHONE ACCOUNT $15,000.00
TOTAL $15,000.00
************************************************************************
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF sUPERVISORS
L IBP~ARY
S I GNATURE
DATE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
~GENDA TITLE:
,fferson-Madison Regional Library FY 1995-96 Budget
~equest
]UBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
~taffreport on impact of not funding hhe
STAFF CONTACT:
Tucker, White
AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
~ane 28, ~995 q.~. O~ .Ts',
ACTION: X
INFORMS_ TION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
During the Board's FY 1995-96 budget worksessions, the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library requested four additional positions, two for
Monticello AV and two for Northside Library, a Library Clerk and a Library Assistant H. The County Executive's Recommended budget
included funding for 1.5 FTE new positions, one full-time project coordinator for Monticello AV and a part-time libra~ clerk (half of the
requested position) for the Northside Library. In addition to funding limitations, the limit to the recommended new positions was partially
based on prel~ discussions with the City Manager's Office on what could bc jnlnfly recommended for the library for FY 1995-96.
During Budget warksessibns, the Board approved additional funding for the remainder of the part-time clerk's salary ($7,500) and the
fall-time Library Assistant II ($24,289) at bTorthside. Although in retrospect it was unclear whether funding for these positions was
conditional Upon the Cites share of the funding, when the final budget was adopted on April 12 the additional f~nding for the Libraty
Assistant II was deleted since the position had not been funded by the City. These funds were put back in the Board's reserve account,
which increased with other items from approximately $27,000 to $62,000. At that time, the Board requested that staff report back in May
on the impact on Northside Library of not funding this position. The following reflects staffs analysis of that impact.
DISCUSSION:
The library reported in their budget request that the circulation of the No~hside Branch increased 81.5% f~om 1991-1994. From
1992-1993, the Noffi~side circulation increased from 144.119 to 307.211 (53%) and from 1993-I994 it increased to 375.161 (22%). At the
opening of the Northside branch, staffing levels were planned to serve 250,000 circalation, but by the end of 1994-95 circulation is expected
to exceed 400,000. Tbe library board's request stated that the circalati°n per lq'g at N°~thside is 46'895 c°mpared t° the Cantral Libra~3r at
22.436 and Gordon Avenue at 26.982.
Other indicators cited for thc increased need for staff since 1991-92 included: an increase in the number of books of 54.5% since 91/92; a
68.6% increase in the unmber of interlibravy loans; a 59% increase in the number of attendees at sto~dmes; and an increase of 64% in the
summer reading program.
It is obvious from the numbers that Northside Library has exceeded the expectations for circulation and s~affing since its opening in FY
1991-92 with current staffing taldng on more of the load of the total library's ciroflafion. Without the additional staff persom the circulation
load wilt be reduced to 41,362 per FTE with the one new position, rather than 37,255 per FTE with two additional positions. Although the
impact on the Nord~side Branch is that current staff will be overloaded, what is difficult to assess is the impact on the regional library
system, since overall circulation rose only 2.6% from FY 92-93 m FY93-94. With such a slight inciease in circulation system wide
compared to such a signficant increase at the Nosthside Brancl% the Library Board may need to consider reallocafing staff resources among
its librmy branches, rather than adding additional staff.
. The uegalive impact for the County in funding the second additional posmon at the Norths~de Library vathout the C~ty s contributton ~s tlaa
....... co~. ' ' m are~mgposed to be
....... .m ~.= ~[~oa of the Ci*~ in fundin~ a joint operation, whose junsdicttonal
based on an equitable share of the costs of circulatton be~vcen c~ty ann c°anry restuents'
RECOMMENDATION:
95.105
Library Request for additional staff person at Northside:
From Donna Selle:
· Have already funded $3,200 for a part-time shelver from some extra funding that will help
lessen the workload on other staff.
· Donna says that they could fund a circulation clerk, not the Library Assistant position at
$24,289, for an additional $15,000. This would require a match of $4,000 from the City to
fund this position, but Donna thinks the city has some additional funds in the library
budget that could be used for their share (with their approval, of course).
· Total position cost for a circulation clerk is $19,118 x 79% (our share) is $15,000.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804l 296-5843 FAX 1804] 296-5800
MEMORANDUM
Char!es S, Martin
Waiter F Perkins
Sally H. Thomas
TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC~~-~
DATE: June 23, 1995
SUBJECT: Reading List for June 28, 1995
December 14, 1994 - pages 1 14 (#12) - Mr. Marshall
pages 14 ($12) - end - Mrs. Thomas
March 1, 1995 - pages 1 - 16 ($!7) - Mr. Perkins
pages 16 ($17) - end - Mr. Bowerman
April 7, 1993 -~p~ 24 (~-'-- ~S pa_~_~ges 34_~ end ~r~
May 10, 1995 Mr. Martin
EWC:mms
Printed on recycled paper
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804~ 296-5843 FAX ~804) 296-5800
Charles $. Martin
Walter F. Perkins
Sally H. Thomas
June 29, 1995
Mr. Kaye Hardin
Emergency Operations Center
P.O~ Box 911
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Mr. Hardin:
Enclosed is the adopted resolution declaring Albemarle
County as a local emergency, as adopted by the Board of Supervi-
sors at its meeting on June 28~ 1995o
If there are any questions, please call me for assistance°
Sincerely,
Clerk
Carey
EWC/tpf
cc: Rick Huff
Printed on recycled paper
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Albemarle County has had unceasing and relentless
rains for the month of June, 1995; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County. does
hereby find that:
Due to the heavy rain, Albemarle County is facing
dangerous flood conditions;
Due =o the floods, a condition of extreme peril of life
and property necessitates the proclamation of the
existence of an emergency;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE ALBERMARLE BOARD OF COU1TTY SUPERVISORS
HEREBY PROCLAIMS that an emergency now exists throughout the
County; and
IT IS FURTHER PROCLAIMED ~ ORDERED that during the exis~
uence of said emergency the powers, function, and duties of the
Director of Emergency Services, and the emergency providers of
Albemarle County shall be those prescribed by state law and the
ordinances, resolutions, and approved plans of Albemarle County
in order to mitigate the effects of the emergency°
I Ella W~ Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing
writing is true, correct copy of a resolution adopted by the
Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at an
adjourned meeting held on June 28, 1995o
C1 k~~ Board of ~isors
League
ANNIVERSARY
1920-1~95
of Women Voters of Charlottesville and Albemarle County
413 East Market Street, Room 203, Charlottesville, VA 22902
(804) 972-t795 Fax (804) 972-1796
To: Charlottesville City Council & Albemarle Board of Supeffis~isz~.,~:
John Casteen and Leonard Sandridge, University of Virginia.
Date: May 18, 1995
The League has long-supported city-county and regional cooperation. We
attend the Planning and Coordinating Council (PACC) meetings and have
watched you develop rapport and address issues of mutual interest. We
are distressed that quarterly meetings have been cancelled because there
were no matters to discuss, and we understand that this month's meeting
has only a limited agenda. We have taken the liberty of suggesting topics
we consider worthy of policy consideration as you plan for future meetings:
1. Highway Issues
The PACC started the discussions that led to the 3-party agreement
on the 29-North corridor. The PACC is a natural arena for discussing
areas of agreement that remain even though the original agreement may
have been discarded by the City, County and the Commonwealth
Transportation Board. What agreement exists on the Meadowcreek
Parkway Extended and the University's North Grounds connector?
2. Other traffic-related issues
Several topics have been discussed by the staff in recent years. Can
we expect to see creative planning on such concerns as traffic reduction
strategies, the cost of JAUNT, MPO membership, and transit cooperation?
We understand that the May agenda includes review and approval of the
regional transit plan, so perhaps some of these issues will be addressed.
3. Comprehensive Plans
How are the three comprehensive plans dovetailing? City-County-
University visioning sessions, neighborhood and other meetings, and written
comments in the media sparked the interest of hundreds of thoughtful
people. Are our shared visions to be given only lip-service or are the three
entities incorporating area visions in their long-range plans? Is that vision
of one 3-section regional Comprehensive Plan still possible in our future?
4. Southern City Study
This study, which includes the Ivy Road corridor, impacts all three
entities. It would seem natural for PACC discussion.
"..a non-partisan organization dedicated to the promotion of informed and active participation of citizens in government..
Letter to PACC Leadership - 2
5. Sustainability Council
Since it appears that the Sustainability Council is the natural legatee
of the visioning sessions, how does the University fit into this effort? We
understand that one of the "Area B" studies may be on the May agenda.
Are other studies in progress?
6. The Institute for Sustainable Design and Commerce at UVA's
Architecture School.
This Institute apparently plans to involve and serve the local
community. How will commtmity participation be structured/invited?
What interaction might/should there be between the Institute and the
Sustainability Council?
7. Economic Developmen!
The City and the University are in the regional partnership. Do
they have a continued interest in involving the County? What role does
the University plan to play in the parmership? a development role with its
research parks? a job-training role (ideally, coordinated with PVCC and
CA-TEC)? and/or the leadership role of the area's largest employer?
8. State budget issues
What are state and federal cut-backs doing to the programs and
employment levels of each entity? Would a united legislative position be
more effective in subsequent sessions of the General Assembly? The
health of the University is crucial to the strength of the local economy:
what impact will state cuts have on our community?
9. Privatization of the University Medical Center
What are plans for this? How might it impact the local community?
10. Greenbelt trails
The Milton study is involved in the proposed greenbelt. What
further plans are contemplated?
11. Computer interfaces
The three police departments and the general community (with
Monticello AVV) are increasingly interconnected. Are there policy
decisions involved? Are policy-makers aware of the interconnections?
UVA maps are on-line. Could they be connected with maps of the region?
12. Telephone fraud
Did the University study reveal anything that would be relevant to
the localities?
Letter to PACC Leadership - 3
13. An ozone monitor
We understand that an ozone monitor may be made available for
regional use. Are there other instances of cooperation that should be
shared among policy-makers?
14. The University's Capital Campaign
What new buildings are proposed? What impact will they have on
the community? traffic patterns? What construction time-table is
expected? Since the 1992 Capital Bond referendum was strongly supported
by the local community, it would seem appropriate to keep the public
informed on the plans and construction.
15. University policy on administrators and community service
With the advent of the elected school board in the County, the
number of local elected officials will increase, ls the University
considering the community impact of its policy forbidding administrators
from holding elected office? What is University policy regarding
appointive positions? Would the University consider encouraging such
community service, as some other local employers do?
16. The value of the PACC to decision-making in our region
Officials of all three PACC entities were leaders in the community's
visioning process. We respectfully request that you develop a vision for the
PACC, a way to implement the major thrust of hundreds of Visions
statements that we are one community and we need cooperative,
coordinating planning to guide our future development and enhance our
quality of life. Since you are the policy-makers with the staffs to follow
through on these concerns, we hope that you are committed to providing
this leadership.
Together you comprise the focal point and the dominant influence
over Central Virginia. You ail draw employees from our neighboring
counties. These two facts and the population and economic growth
projected for our area suggest that we should also be considering an
increased emphasis on regional planning and coordination.
Thank you for your attention.
LEA)DUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
Katie Hobbs, President
J.A. KESSLER. JR.. President
D.E. SOURS. Senior Vice President
R.E. LEE. JR.. Treasurer
Mr. H. Basil Hallquist
1200 Old Garth Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Please repty to: Chado~tesville
June 20, 1995
Dear Mr. Hatlquist:
We are in receipt of your letter of June 12, 1995 expressing concerns about the
inconvenience the construction activities on the Galtison Hall property have caused to you.
We apologize for the inconvenience and want to let you know that R. E. Lee & Son has been
in business for 56 years in Albemarle County, and we relish our reputation as being a quality
contractor who is particularly sensitive to the impact of our work on adjacent property owners
and the environment.
As you are familiar with construction contracting, I want to bring the following matters to
your attention as a way of explanation of our Gatlison activities over the past year.
R. E. Lee & Son, Inc. was awarded a contract by Mr. Scott to make certain
improvements to his property, based on lump sum competitive bids received by
Mr. Scott_ Our contract scope of work does not include all of the construction
activities that have been on-going during the past year. There are other
contractors also working on the property directly for Mr. Scott.
R. E. Lee & Son, Inc. did not cut your water line; that was done by another
contractor, not working for us.
As required by State law, R. E. Lee & Son excavated several locations on the
Gallison property only after the utility locations were marked by the "Miss Utility"
coordinator. "Miss Utility" failed to identify buried telephone lines m two
locations. While excavating in these "cleared to excavate areas", we did cut the
telephone line on two occasions. We immediately stopped work, notified the
telephone company, the repairs were made and service was restored within
three to four hours. It is my understanding that other underground lines have
been cut by other contractors working on the property.
A schedute developed in the contract with Mr. Scott requires that we work
extended hours. We are doing so in an effort, to complete our contract work
within the next two weeks..
Construction access to the GaIlison Hall project has been designated as
Finders Way. The size and volume of the construction activity has caused
damage within that 50' dght of way. It is my understanding from Mr. Scott that
he intends to restore and upgrade the Finder's Way roadway at his expense at
the corn pletion of his construction activities. The 50' dght of way road easement
Construction end Engineering Management Since 1939
'R. E, Lee and Son, ~nc.
Mr. H, Basil Hallquist
Page 2 - June 20, 1995
agreement dated 3 November 1976 which you sent to us, says that the
Bernhardts and owners of lots 1 through 6 may all use the 50' ingress and
egress easement, and that each of the seven lots will be assessed 1/7 of the
cost of maintaining the road. I do not find anything that restricts the use of that
road to lot #3 only. We ask you to discuss your concerns about legal access to
Gallison via Finder's Way directly with Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott had a complete sitework plan designed by professional engineers and
had the plan approved by Albemarle County. This included all storm water
drainage requirements, both temporary and permanent. The sitework has been
monitored very closely by Mr. Shaw of Albemarle County, apparently at your
request. We have cooperated fully with Mr. Shaw, and have in all instances
exceeded our contractual and the permit requirements, in addition. Mr. Scott
had several culverts installed within the 50' Finder's Way easement to facilitate
the flow of water away from your property and down to Old Garth Road. I have
directed our site supervisor to install some additional straw bales as you
suggested, to minimize the impact of water runoff on your property. It is Mr.
Scott's plan to sod and landscape a large portion of his property within the next
sixty days, which will then define the permanent storm water drainage pattern
for the area.
Again, both R.-.-7_ Lee & .Son and Mr. Scott want to be good Albemarle County
neighbors.
Sincerely,
D. E. Sours, P.E.
Senior Vice President
/cks:des-L0003
CC:
Mr. James F. Scott w/enclosure
Mr. Don Powers
1L E. Lee & Sons
Hydraulic Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
H. ASm m $ LQt T
!200 OLD OA_RTH ROAD
L%4ARIX)TIES~ VA 22901
~ 12, 1995
DearMr. Powem:
We are not acquainted, however, I live adjacent to the, C~llison Hall project that
you have under contract Our prop¢~ty has been subj~t to const~ abuse since the
inception of the proje~. Our water lines have been cut ~tien we had dinner ~e~, the
phone and TV Cable 0lines have been ~vered, (we were without phone service for over a
week b~m~se ofoross ~ on ~ ~tem c~used by dan~ge lo the phone cable). Traffic to
the site starts at 6:00 A. M. in the morni~ and r~cently goes on i~r seven d~m per wevk,
We are entitled to the peaceful quiet enjos~nent of om' residence x,~i& has not existed for
the p~ year. In addition our prince road has vitally been &~wed. I have att~hed the
recorded dedication, You will note that ~s only provides for It~ use of lot ~ and not
the to~ properly. Therefore, the use for construction of the total property, has not been
legal. I recognize flint it would have been n dis~er for the Famin~on Club for this traffic
to u~e the Legal Entrance of G~leon Hall.
My current concern is the accelerated drainage across ~l lot during the rains.
Bobby Shaw of the counly is trying to be helpful but his effort is ignored. The water flow
is so heavy because ffthe higher elevations and barren areas that drain to this low point.
In addition this flow is startin4 a new stream bed ~ough the lower properties, R is
common practice in situations l~e Ms to u~e a primary barricade of baled s~w to slow
the flow ofw~er so the sedimeut barrier canbe effective,
! ~ no ~i~ ~er to con~s~action, I ~rmaged ~he M~u M~etta project~ for the total
corporation for over 25 years, In addifor~ I ~n a past President of the Industrial
Development Research Council. I still do some consulting for major complies in their
site selection process,
It is impe~ve tl~ additional m~st~'es be established to prevent the flooding of
adjacent properties.
Your~ truly,
1t~ Basil Hallquist
CC: Albemarle County Board o£St~pervisors
J._V~ WhitleY G Associates, Inc.
Distribution Consultants to Industry
Route 5, Box $94
Charlottesville, VA 22901
804-29~-6752
Ms Charlotte Humphris
Board of Supervisors
Albermarle County
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VAo
Dear Ms. Humphris:
22902-4596
May 12, 1995
I am writing to you as my elected representative to protest the
uncontrolled debauchery of the recent Fnw~td ~c~. ~at was
proposed and supported seventeen years ago by all adjoining
property owners as a race for horse lovers has degenerated into
a UVA (attached Daily Progess article) drinking event because
it is prohibited at UVA sports events. Drinking is prohibited
universally at all amateur events as well as professional activities?
yet Foxfield does nothing at their sports event° Their newspaper
commen~ was that we will wait until some drunk has a major accident°
This is indicative of their control of the most recent event.
Without repeating the complaints to Foxfietd and the police plus
recommendations, I would address issues controlled by our County
management:
Doesn't the health department become involved in setting
health sanitary portables relevant to anticipated crowd
and, if so~ how are they implementing those codes.
Our police department literally collapsed in the last
two or three hours of the race when most problems develop
by reason of excessive drinking. They were either not
there or from my property directly across from Foxfield~
they simply congregated and stopped patrolling°
o Isn't their an Agency like ABC that is responsible for
underage drinking and where were they at this performance°
The police could have probably written a thousand DUI's
with checks set up all routes leading to UVA without
inhibiting traffic flow from UVA - Zero.
A Special Use Permit is designed to control usuage intensity
and incidental use to primary intent. We get heavy equipment
auctions, pig roasts, association parties, etc. Who is
reviewing, if anyone, and when does it become controlled?
J..Vo Whitley & Associates, Inc.
May 11, 1995
Chief John Miller
Albemarle County Police
401 McInZiteaRoad
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Dear Chief Miller:
I have attached my strong complaint letter to the Foxfield Racing
Association for what I consider one of the mostly badly managed
shows in seventeen years. My letter to you is not to reiterate,
but to specifically address police performance. Since my property
is directly opposite the west parking field of Foxfield, I was on
center stage.
Police performance was superb controlling traffic coming into the
Foxfield grounds and street Datrol for the first three-four hours.
As the day wore on, only one motorcycle policeman and one patrol
car moved up and down the road° The rest congregated at the main
gate and had a love fest.. ~en~ the race was over, virtually all
police patrol seemed to disappear except for two to four policeman
at each gate for traffic control. ~hen the fourth car oarked on
my front lawn refused to move, my wife had to literally step out
into the middle of the road to stop the police car or he would
have passed us by. There was no visible foot patrol in the west
field area where the UVA students were having heavy drinking parties.
My suggestions to the police:
O
Foot patrols along the fence line to prevent students from
jumping the fence to get in free and to stop students from
returning after buying liquor mix or urinating in other
people's property. Sitting in police car doesn't work.
o Less patrol cars and more motorcycle police who can move
more freely and uninhibited on a congested road.
DUI checks set up on US250, Rte 29, Old Hydraulic and
Owensville Road. These children came out of Foxfield
driving drunk. This does not affect traffic flow from
Foxfield, but perhaps stops serious accidents.
Aside from requiring traffic exiting the main gate to turn
right towards Barracks Road, all traffic from ~he West Gate
should be required to turn left to Old Hydraulic. A traffic
policeman at the outside parking lots at the west end would
also require traffic to head to Old Hydraulic. Traffic
coming from Owensville-Whitehall diverted to Hydraulic. This
gives almost uninterrupted traffic flow from Foxfield instead
of stop-and-go°
Best Regards,
o/s~ph V. Whitley
cc: Charlotte Humphris
J.V~ Whitley & Associates. Inc.
May 2, 1995
Mr. Patrick Butterfield
Foxfield Racing Association
Post Office Box 5187
Charlottesville, VA 22905
Dear Mr. Butterfield:
I wish to register a strong complaint over the chaotic conduct
of the Foxfield Race April 29t 1995 and offer some recommendations.
Instead of the race being cleared by 6 o'clock~ cars were still
leaving at 8 P.M.. This two hour delay occasioned by a horse
breaking loose, allowed two more hours of excessive drinking°
During this two hour period, I had to patrol my property, which
is directly opposite your west field parking area° A condensed
synopsis of my activities: Chasing urinating UVA students trying
to use my property for a bathroom; dozens more urinating on my
trees while I was chasing compatriots at the other end of my
grounds;Three cars crossed my drainage ditch, endeavoring to park
on the front of my property bordering Garth Road; A fourth car
refused to move and the police had to be called to enforce the
law; a fifth car parked in my driveway for 35 minutes, taking his
keys while he went looking for friends; a sixth car asking me to
remove my car from the head of the driveway so they could turn
around; and three cars that swerved into mv drainage ditch and
back onto Garth Road because they were obviously drunk. In
summary, Foxfield has a responsibility for the conduct of it's
spectators and the assurance of my right to privacy. Foxfield
is supposed to be a race event and not a drunken party for UVA.
My recommendations:
o Prohibit consumption of alcoholic beverages and sell soda
on the grounds instead. Inebriated people should be
refused admittance.
o Start on time and finish on time by 5 P.M. so grounds are
cleared by six. A horse breaking loose is not an excuse
to stop everything if there are adequate personnel.
o Foxfield has never had sufficient portable toilets. Add
alot more and put some in the west field parking area.
There was not a single toilet in that area so I was used.
o Foot patrol securit~ along the fence line to patrol and
keep students from lumping the fence to enter or leave..
Spectators who leave should not be allowed back in for
any reason. All your police security sat in patrol cars.
o Security disappeared when the race was over except for
traffic control at gates keep security until the gates
are closed this is when it is needed most.
o Departing cars from the main gate must turn right towards
Charlottesville. Cars leaving the west gate and outside~
parking must turn left to Old Hydraulic. This precludes
stop-go traffic in front of Foxfieldo
John Miller
Charlotte Humphris hitley
FAX TRANSMITTAL
TO Dana Hubbard FROM L E Neher
CO Daily Progress CO Albemarle County
DEPT Classified PHONE # 296-5843
FAX # 978-7223 FAX # 296-5800
$CI~%SS,MonAd,AlbemarleCounty
PUBLIC NOTICE\qCr\
Albemarle County\qcr\
Board of Supervisors\qcr\
June 28, 1995\qcr\
...Notice is hereby given that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, will conduct public hearings on June 28, 1995, 7:00 p.m.,
Meeting Room #241, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia, to consider the following petitions:\qlr\
1) ZMA-95-02. H & H Partnership. To rezone approx 1.88 acs from R-2 to HC.
Property in SW corner of Rt 631/I-64 inters. TM76,P55B. Site recommended for
Community Service in Neighborhood 5 in Comprehensive Plan. Scottsville
Dist.\qlr\
2) ZMA-95-03. H & H Partnership. To rezone approx 2.163 acs from R-2 To HC.
Property in SW corner of Rt 631/I-64 inters. TM76,P55D. Site recommended for
Community Service in Neighborhood 5 in Comprehensive Plan. Scottsville
Dist.\qlr\
3) ZTA-95-02. University Real Estate Foundation. To emend the Zoning Ordinance
in Sections 29.2.5 and 29.2.6 to create a Category III with by-right & special
use permit uses in the Planned Development-Industrial Park (PD-IP) catego-
ry.\qlr\
4) SP-95-06. Robert'Couch, Jr. To permit expansion of existing antique shop &
outdoor display of merchandise on approx 1.2 ac zoned RA & EC located on N sd
of Rt 250E approx 0.5 mi E of entrance to Glenmore dvlp. TM79A1,Sec C,P's10&-
11. Rivanna Dist.\qlr\
5) SP-95-07. Institute of Textile Technology. For school of special instruc-
tion on approx 12.5 ac zoned CO & EC located on Rt 250W. Property is site of
ITT. TM60,P28. Samuel Miller Dist.\qlr\
6) SP-95-12. Keswick Corporation & Laura Yergan. For division of land as
provided in Sec 10.5 to allow 30 more lots than the total number permitted
under Sec 10.3.1 and Sec 10.3.2 on approx 535 acs zoned RA & EC Overlay Dist.
Development shall be in accord with proposal plan. Property is location of the
Keswick Country Club development. TM80,P'sS,SC,SCl,8D2,SD3,SD4,SJ,SZ,21A,27,
29,31,41,41A,43,60,60A,61,61A1,62,69,70,70A,90,93,94,95,96,97,98,100,lO6,109A
& TM94,P42A. Rivanna Dist.\qlr\
...Anyone desiring further information about the above petitions, please
contact the County Department of Planning and Community Developments Second
Floor, County Office Building, or telephone 296-5823.\qlr\
...Reasonable accommodations will be provided to persons with disabilities, if
requested. Please call 296-5827.\qlr\
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC\qlr\
Purchase Order No. A-743
Bill to: Albemarle County
Account Number 204066
Date: June 13, 1995
Date Run: June 14 and June 20, 1995
J~V. Whitley & Associates, Inc.
Distribution Consultants to Industry
Ms Charlotte Humphris
Board of Supervisors
Albermarle County
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesvillet VA.
Dear Ms. Humphris:
22902-4596
RouTe 5, Box 394
Charlottesville, VA 22901
804-296-6752
May 12, 1995
I am writing to you as my elected representative to protest the
uncontrolled debauchery of the recent ~n~f~]~ ~c~. ~at was
proposed and supported seventeen years ago by all adjoining
p~operty owners as a race for horse lovers has degenerated into
a UVA (attached Daily Progess article) drinking event because
it is prohibited at UVA sports events. Drinking is prohibited
universally at all amateur events as well as professional activities~
yet Foxfield does nothing at their sports event. Their newspaper
comment was that we will wait until some drunk has a major accident°
This is indicative of their control of the most recent event.
Without repeating the complaints
recommendations~ I would address
management:
to Foxfisld and the police plus
issues controlled by our County
Doesn't the health department become involved in setting
health sanitary portables relevant to anticipated crowd
and, if so, how are they implementing those codes.
o
o
Our police department literally collapsed in the last
two or three hours of the race when most problems develop
by reason of excessive drinking. They were either not
there or from my property directly across from Foxfield,
they s~mply congregated and stopped patrolling.
Isn't their an Agency like ABC that is responsible for
underage drinking and where were they at this performance.
The police could have probably written a thousand DUI's
with checks set up all routes leading to UVA without
inhibiting traffic flow from UVA Zero.
A Special Use Permit is designed to control usuage intensity
and incidental use to primary intent. We get heavy equipment
auctions, pig roasts, association parties~ etc. Who is
reviewing~ if anyone, and when does it become controlled?
e~rds, .
Joseph V.~
,~.J.V~.~ Whitley & Associates, Inc.
May 11, 1995
Chief John Miller
Albemarle County Police
401 McIn~i~eeRoad
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Dear Chief Miller:
I have attached my strong complaint letter to the Foxfield Racing
Association for what I consider one of the mostly badly managed
shows in seventeen years. My letter to you is not to reiterate,
but to specifically address police performance. Since my property
is directly opposite the west parking field of Foxfield, I was on
center stage.
Police performance was superb controlling traffic coming into~ the
Foxfield grounds and street patrol for the first three-four hours.
As the day wore on, only one motorcycle policeman and one patrol
car moved up and down the road. The rest congregated at the main
gate and had a love fest.. When the race was over, virtually all
police patrol seemed to disappear except for two to four policeman
at each gate for traffic control. ~fhen the fourth car parked on
my front lawn refused to move, my wife had to literally step out
into the middle of the road to stop the police car or he would
have passed us by. There was no visible foot patrol in the west
field area where the UVA students were having heavy drinking parties°
My suggestions to the police:
Foot.patrols along the fence line to prevent students from
lumping the fence to get in free and to stop students from
returning after buying liquor mix or urinating in other
people's property. Sitting in police car doesn't work.
o Less patrol cars and more motorcycle police who can move
more freely and uninhibited on a congested road.
DUI checks set up on US250, Rte 29, Old Hydraulic and
Owensville Road. These children came out of Foxfield
driving drunk. This does not affect traffic flow from
Foxfield, but perhaps stops serious accidents.
cc: Charlotte Humphris
Aside from requiring traffic exiting the main gate to turn
right towards Barracks Road, all traffic from the West Gate
should be required to turn left to Old Hydraulic. A traffic
policeman at the outside parking lots at the west end would
also require traffic to head to Old Hydraulic. Traffic
coming from Owensville-Whitehall diverted to Hydraulic. This
gives almost uninterrupted traffic flow from Foxfield instead
of stop-and-go.
Best Regards,
.~. J.~. Whitley & Associates. Inc,
May 2, 1995
Mr. Patrick Butterfield
Foxfield Racing Association
Post Office Box 5187
Charlottesville, VA 22905
Dear Mr. Butterfield:
I wish to register a strong complaint over the chaotic conduct
of the Foxfield Race April 29, 1995 and offer some recommendations.
Instead of the race being cleared by 6 o'clock~ cars were still
leaving at 8 P.M.. This two hour delay occasioned by a horse
breaking loose, allowed two more hours of excessive drinking.
During this two hour period, I had to patrol my property, which
is directly opposite your west field parking area. A condensed
synopsis of my activities: Chasing urinating UVA students trying
to use my property for a bathroom; dozens more urinatinq on my
trees while I was chasing compatriots at the other end of my
grounds;Three cars crossed my drainage ditch, endeavoring to park
on the front of my property bordering Garth Road; A fourth car
refused to move and the police had to be called to enforce the
law; a fifth car parked in my driveway for 35 minutes, taking his
keys while he went looking for friends; a sixth car asking me to
remove my car from the head of the driveway so they could turn
around; and three cars that swerved into my drainage ditch and
back onto Garth Road because they were obviously drunk. In
summary, Foxfield has a responsibility for the conduct of it's
spectators and the assurance of my right to privacy. Foxfield
is supposed to be a race event and not a drunken party for UVAo
My recommendations:
o Prohibit consumption of alcoholic beverages and sell soda
on the grounds instead° Inebriated people should be
refused admittance.
o Start on time and finish on time by 5 P.M. so grounds are
cleared by six. A horse breaking'loose is not an excuse
to stop everything if there are adequate personnel.
o Foxfield has never had sufficient portable toilets. Add
alot more and put some in the west field parking area.
There was not a single toilet in ~%at area so I was used.
o Foot patrol security al~nq ~he fence line to patrol and
keep students from 3~plng the fence to enter or leave..
Spectators who leave should not be allowed back in for
any reason. All your police security sat in patrol cars.
o Security disappeared when the race was over except for
traffic control at gates - keep security until the gates
are closed - this is when it is needed most.
o Departing cars from the main gate must turn right towards
Charlottesville. Cars leaving the west gate and outside
parking must turn left to Old Hydraulic. This precludes
stop-go traffic in front of Foxfield.
cc: o/s ? v
John Miller
Charlotte Humphris .
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 . FAX (804) 972-4060
July/6, 1995
Char~s S. Martin
Walter F. Perkins
The Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.
United States House of Representatives
Committee on Commerce
2125 Rayburn House Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20515-6115
RE: IIR 1085 - Solid Waste Flow Control Legislation
Dear Congressman Bliley:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors are most concerned with the legislation being considered
byyour committee on controlling the flow ofsolid waste. We share the concerns of other localities
and the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) which provides solid waste management for the City
of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle.
We support the ability of localities to remain as flexible as they can with regard to solid waste
initiatives. The legislation your committee is reviewing will, in our opinion, reduce a locality's
fie>ability in managing, its solid waste efficiently as well as possibl reduci ' "
innovative uses of this resource In o~;~:~- ,L_ . _ y ng its ab~hty to find more
· ' .... ,,,~m m~ proposeu aow control legislation would limit a
locality's ability to pay future debt on investments for landfill operations and equipment incurred in
the past and future.
We urge you to support broader flow control authority that protects a locality's solid waste
management efforts and allows the locality to meet its debt obligations.
Sincerely,
Walter F. Perkins
Chairman
WFP/dbm
95.018
pc: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors {~
Printed on recycled paper