Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-11-10N November 10, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on November 10, 2004 at 6:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Dennis S. Rooker, Ms. Sally H. Thomas and Mr. David C. Wyant. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg, and Deputy Clerk, Debi Moyers. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Rooker. _______________ Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. _______________ Agenda Item No. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Tom Loach, a resident of Crozet, said he recently attended an ASAP meeting where Ms. Thomas mentioned that the Board would be reviewing land use taxation. He assumes this review is part of the Rural Areas where one of the strategies is to establish a committee to review the land use taxation program. First, he would like to volunteer his services for the committee. Second, when this committee is formed, its makeup should be proportionate to those that receive the benefit and the taxpayers that have to pay for it. With regard to the Board’s early discussion on CDAs, he does not think the public has received enough information about the tax implications. A CDA sounds fairly complicated and complicated usually means expensive and time consuming. He is concerned about a two tier-taxing system where people who may be paying higher taxes think they deserve more because of the higher taxes. It behooves the Board to get the word out to the community about a CDA because it needs to make sure the development benefits the public and the CDA within the development is a benefit. Otherwise, it looks like the only person benefiting from this is the developer. _______________ Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda Item 5.1 Approval of Minutes: July 14 and September 8, 2004. No action taken. Moved to next agenda. _______________ . SP-2004-00044. Albemarle Ballet Theatre (Signs #52&63). Agenda Item No. 6 Public hearing on a request to allow priv ballet school in accord w/Sec 22.2.2.6 of Zoning Ord which allows for private schools in C-1 Dist. TM 56A1-1, P 65, contains 1.208 acs. Znd C-1. Loc on Rt 240 (Three Notched Rd) at . intersec of Three Notched Rd & Rt 810 (Crozet Ave). White Hall Dist(Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 25 and November 1, 2004). Mr. Cilimberg said this is a proposal for a ballet school that will be located in the central core of downtown Crozet in the historic Fruit Growers Complex building. The parcel contains a series of buildings which form the commercial frontage of Route 240 in this part of the downtown. The entrance to the school will be located at the rear of the building which provides access to the second floor where the Ballet School will be operating. Staff cited several factors favorable in its recommendation to the Planning Commission and the Board. This is an adaptive reuse of an existing historic building, it reflects several principals of the Neighborhood Model and the school will provide neighborhood service to the surrounding community of Crozet. One factor unfavorable, proposed by the applicant, is that a total of 24 students could be attending classes on site at a given time. Staff felt that number of students could not be supported by the existing infrastructure, particularly, the parking and circulation system that currently exists adjacent to the building, behind the building and in the general area of downtown Crozet that provides parking support for other buildings as well. The issue has to do with the stacking of student pick-up and drop-off traffic. Based on that, staff recommended approval with conditions that limited class size, due to vehicular circulation and pedestrian safety. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 26, 2004, felt stacking would not be an issue and recommended approval with five conditions that were modified from that provided by staff. The Chairman asked the applicant to address the Board. Mr. Gary Hart, the applicant’s husband, thanked everyone for their hard work. He introduced his wife, Sally Hart, founder of the ballet school. They moved here from New York in 1988. Ms. Hart is from Virginia. Ms. Hart has been teaching ballet since 1990. She has a five-year career that goes back to the Joffrey Ballet and they have two daughters. Ms. Hart taught at the Crozet Baptist Church for ten years. She taught at the After School Enrichment Program at Brownsville Elementary and she has also taught at Northbranch School. They picked this as a mission for the community. Mr. Hart said pedestrian access November 10, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) was a major issue. There is a sidewalk that reaches from the corner of Three Notched Road (Route 240) and Route 810 that extends all the way to both schools, three-tenths of a mile and then also extends down part of Route 240. The school is proposed in the rear because they have better control over security of the students. Security is a primary issue. The other issue was potential occupancy of unused space. This is the only unused space that is available in the building. There is no other unused space that could impact parking. He supports the Planning Commission’s recommendation and whatever conditions the Board feels are necessary. They want a successful financial operation and they need the 24 students to make it a success. Ms. Thomas asked if the classes consist of 12 students each. Mr. Hart replied, “Yes”. Ms. Thomas asked if they give individual lessons. Mr. Hart said that is a possibility so class size can be smaller. Mr. Boyd asked if the applicant had a problem with condition #5 regarding only holding recitals on Sundays. Mr. Hart said there was no problem. Mr. Dorrier then opened the public hearing. Mr. Tom Loach said he thinks this is a good business for downtown and Crozet. He hopes the Board will approve the request. Mr. Dorrier closed the public hearing. Mr. Wyant said he thinks it is good business for Crozet. Motion was then made by Mr. Wyant to approve SP-2004-0044 subject to the five conditions seconded recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker. NAYS: None Note (: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) 1. The total number of students attending classes on site shall not exceed twenty-four (24) at any given time; 2. Classes shall be staggered so that no class begins or ends within fifteen (15) minutes of the beginning or ending of another class; 3. Normal hours of operation for the school shall be from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. provided that occasional school-related events may occur after 9:00 p.m.; 4. The parking spaces required for this use shall not be reserved; and 5. On site recitals shall be held on Sundays only. _______________ SP- 2004-0045. Charlottesville First Assembly (Sign #65). Agenda Item No. 7. Public hearing on a request to amend existing SUP to allow expansion of the church use in accord w/Sec 15.2.2.12 of the Zoning Ord. TM 61, P 153A1. Znd R-4 and contains 4.71 acs. Loc on Rt 631 (E Rio Rd) between CATECH & Raiload bridge. Rio Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 25 and November 1, 2004). th Mr. Cilimberg said at its meeting on October 26, the Planning Commission expressed two concerns. The first concern was whether additional right-of-way was needed for the Meadow Creek Parkway along this section of Rio Road. This section is actually part of Rio Road that would be widened in conjunction with the Meadow Creek Parkway project. The second concern was with trees and parking lot design. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this request with four conditions. Since the Commission meeting, staff has determined that the right-of-way on Rio Road will not need to be changed along the frontage of the Charlottesville First Assembly Church. The road would be expanded to the north and east on the other side of Rio Road so there is no need for additional right-of-way for that expansion along the frontage of this property. VDoT is requesting right-of-way dedication for the new entrance design that is part of this special use permit for the church parking lot. Representatives of the church have indicated support for that dedication. Staff worked with the applicant to provide more specific conditions about the location of additional six trees. Revised conditions have been provided to the Board that staff feels satisfies the Commission’s concerns. Mr. Cilimberg added that staff is recommending a modification to the last sentence in condition 4. The condition shall read: “The remaining trees shall be placed in the area between Rio Road and the parking lot to augment the street trees shown on the plan” to eliminate an ambiguity in the sentence. Mr. Dorrier called the applicants to come forward. Reverend Pete Harwig, the lead Pastor of Charlottesville First Assembly said they are ready to build a new parking lot. The church has grown about 300 percent in the past five years. They do have a parking arrangement with CATEC next door which works well until it snows. Also, they want to eliminate people having to walk on Rio Road. The applicants support the recommendation. The Chairman opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak, the public hearing was closed. November 10, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) Ms. Thomas asked if the parking could be pervious as opposed to impervious surface parking. Mr. Cilimberg said that is somewhat problematic from an engineering standpoint. The staff has not wanted to include conditions regarding pervious pavement without additional engineering review. Ms. Thomas asked if Engineering does not automatically look at the pavement. Mr. Cilimberg replied, “no”, they do not automatically endorse a pervious design. Ms. Thomas said it seems like it should become a fairly automatic review to see whether it is possible. Mr. Tucker said the Board can ask staff to see if that can be worked out when they work with the applicant. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to approve SP-2004-0045, Charlottesville First Assembly, with the four conditions recommended by the Planning Commission with condition #4 amended at the seconded Board meeting. The motion was by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker NAYS: None. Note (: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) 1. The church’s improvements and the scale and location of the improvements shall be developed in general accord with the concept plan entitled “Charlottesville First Assembly Minor Amendment to Valid Special Use Permit” prepared by Terra Partners, LLC and dated July 19, 2004; (the "concept plan"), as further modified as required by conditions 3 and 4; 2. Day care use shall be prohibited unless approved through a special use permit amendment; 3. The owner shall reserve the proposed right-of-way for dedication for public use upon demand by the County that is identified on the plan modified by Jack Kelsey, attached hereto. The site plan shall show the reserved right-of-way and include the following note: “Right-of-way reserved for dedication for public use upon demand by the County"; and 4. The owner shall plant and maintain six (6) additional shade trees in the front portion of the parking lot to further buffer the visual impact of the parking lot along Rio Road and to address the urban heat island dynamic. At least two (2) of the six (6) trees shall be planted in the center of the first full row of parking parallel to Rio Road. The remaining trees shall be placed in the area between Rio Road and the parking lot to augment the street trees shown on the plan. _______________ SP-2004-0040. Mount Fair Farm. Appeal Agenda Item No. 8. of Program Authority decision disapproving stream buffer disturbances, pursuant to the Water Protection Ordinance, Section 17-311. (Removed from agenda.) _______________ Agenda Item No. 9. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Tucker said the Board had a couple of items for Closed Session. __________ Ms. Thomas said VACO’s Annual Meeting at the Homestead was a success. She learned new things and had some good conversations. It is always really useful to get together with other people who are going through the same issues that Albemarle is going through. __________ Ms. Thomas stated she and a number of other people from the Planning District will be serving on a committee, appointed by JABA, to look at implementing JABA’s 2020 Plan. __________ Ms. Thomas said the High Growth Coalition is making a proposal for an Executive Director part- time position. It will require the County’s contribution be increased. Mr. Dorrier said the High Growth Coalition’s legislative proposal will require some action from the Board by December 1, 2004. __________ Mr. Bowerman reported that VDOT made a good presentation at the VACO conference. The Secretary of Natural Resources chaired a committee that looked at water resource regulations. (A copy of the report has been forwarded to Board members.) __________ Mr. Rooker said at its meeting on Monday, November 8, the MPO received a letter from the 5C’s requesting that the MPO consider appointing a committee to make recommendations on funding transportation improvements that are not being funded by the State. The MPO passed a motion to appoint a committee to immediately begin meeting and bring back specific recommendations. __________ Mr. Boyd mentioned a proposal to complete the buildout of Briarwood Subdivision that is currently going through the County development process system. At its recent retreat, the Board discussed there may be some times when it may want to fast track a request in support of affordable housing. He personally feels the County should move past the master planning process for this project. It is an existing neighborhood. The process is requiring the applicant to go through the zoning process because of the change in the style of housing not because of the request. He asked if there was a consensus of the Board to direct staff to bring the request forward without the master planning. November 10, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) Mr. Rooker said he would like staff to come back with some kind of report. Mr. Tucker said staff can bring back some information at the December Board meeting. Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Boyd if when he used the word “master plan” did he mean as part of the Route 29 North area. Mr. Graham said staff is not holding up the application process for a master plan. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant is under a planned development zoning where changes are made as part of the Neighborhood Model not master planning. Master planning is a process that staff is going through in the northern development areas. The Board has talked before about whether projects should be held until that master planning is done. Staff understands there are some cases where that is not practical. This is one of them. He thinks there are some aspects of their proposal that staff responded to with an interest to reflect more of the neighborhood model principles. He thinks that may be what Mr. Boyd is speaking to. Mr. Boyd said he is really talking about the Neighborhood Model because the problem has to do with the developer requesting a modification in the style of housing and the staff requesting he have some mixed uses. Mr. Graham said there are two separate issues here. The first is the master plan process that is going on for the Route 29 North corridor. Staff agrees that the project should not be held up for that process. There are particular zoning issues that have to be addressed as part of the review for this project. The applicant still has to go through the process. Staff must review the request based on the Comprehensive Plan. One of the twelve principles is affordable housing so that would clearly weigh very heavily in that decision. Mr. Rooker asked if this is a rezoning request. Mr. Cilimberg replied, “yes”. Mr. Rooker commented that it will come back to the Board after it is reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Boyd said it is his understanding the request was being held up because the staff was requiring the developer to add some mixed uses which was not in the original plan by the developer. This is going to include potentially 300 affordable homes. Mr. Tucker suggested staff provide the Board with the status of the project at the December 1 Board meeting. __________ Mr. Davis said he has distributed to Board members a resolution to authorize acquisition of property that is owned by Robert and Patricia Byrom. Mr. and Mrs. Byrom are proposing to gift this property to the County for the purpose of a public forest preserve park. This resolution would authorize the County Executive to accept that gift of property and to also execute an agreement with the Big Eight Hunt Club. Motionseconded was offered by Mr. Rooker to adopt the proposed resolution. The motion was by Mr. Boyd. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker. NAYS: None RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle desires to accept certain properties within the County by gift from Robert M. Byrom and Patricia A. Byrom for the purpose of providing a public forest preserve park; and WHEREAS, all necessary agreements for the acquisition of said properties have been made and presented to the Board of Supervisors for its consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby authorizes the County Executive to execute the following Agreements and all other documents necessary to acquire Tax Map Parcels 6-16, 6-28D, and 6-29 in the County of Albemarle: 1. Deed of Gift from Robert M. Byrom and Patricia A. Byrom dated November 1, 2004 conveying Tax Map Parcels 6-16, 6-28D, and 6-29 in the County of Albemarle; 2. Agreement between the County of Albemarle and the Big Eight Hunt Club for the Hunt Club’s continued use, subject to certain conditions, of Tax Map Parcels 6-16, 6-28D, and 6-29 in the County of Albemarle; __________ AGREEMENT nd THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 2 day of December, 2004, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter sometimes referred to as the “County”; and the BIG EIGHT HUNT CLUB, hereinafter sometimes referred to as the “Hunt Club.” WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Hunt Club entered into a “Land Use Agreement for Permission to Hunt” (hereinafter “Byrom Agreement”) with Robert M. Byrom and Patricia A. Byrom dated June 1, 2003; and, November 10, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) WHEREAS, said Byrom Agreement allows the Hunt Club permission to enter and hunt upon certain properties then owned by Robert M. Byrom and Patricia A. Byrom; and, WHEREAS, by separate Deed, said Robert M. Byrom and Patricia A. Byrom are conveying the subject property of the Byrom Agreement to the County; and, WHEREAS, the County and the Hunt Club wish to affirm, abide by, and continue the basic terms of the Byrom Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual benefits to the parties, the County and the Hunt Club, for themselves and their legal representatives, successors and assigns, do hereby consent and agree to continue in effect that certain “Land Use Agreement for Permission to Hunt” dated June 1, 2003, to the extent permitted by law and except as otherwise amended herein. 1. The Hunt Club shall have permission to hunt on the subject property only in the months of October through the following February during fall and winter archery/muzzle loading/firearms/small game season, as designated by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. The Hunt Club shall not have permission to hunt on the subject property on Sundays, even during the designated season. The County reserves the right to review and revise the limits of the hunting season annually, provided that any reduction of the hunting season by the County shall result in a proportionate reduction of the fee set forth in Paragraph 3 of the Byrom Agreement. 2. Because the subject property is a public park, the Hunt Club shall not have permission to hunt on the subject property during any time the County designates that the subject property is open as a public park. 3. Whenever Hunt Club members and/or invitees are hunting on the subject property, the Hunt Club shall prominently post a notice at the park’s entrance warning those entering the park that hunting is occurring on the subject property. 4. Hunt Club members and invitees shall respect and observe property boundaries and shall not trespass or hunt on adjoining properties without the other owner’s consent. The County will investigate any complaints made regarding the conduct of Hunt Club members and/or invitees. If founded, said complaint(s) may result in the loss of hunting privileges. 5. The Hunt Club, its members, and invitees shall not operate any radio, tape player or amplified sound equipment on the subject property in such a manner as to disturb neighboring residents or to interfere with the reasonable enjoyment of the subject property by others. 6. Either party may terminate this Agreement by providing six (6) months’ written notice to the other party. 7. The Hunt Club shall indemnify and hold harmless the County, its agents and employees from any claim or liability resulting from the use of the subject property by the Hunt Club, its agents or invitees. In addition, the Hunt Club shall continue to carry a general liability insurance policy, in an amount acceptable to the County, that names the County as an additional insured. Certificate(s) of insurance reflecting this coverage must be furnished to the County within 15 days of the transfer of the subject property, and upon any subsequent request of the County. Said insurance coverage shall not be reduced or amended without the prior notice and consent of the County. 8. Except as otherwise amended herein, the County shall assume all rights and privileges inuring to the “Landowner” in said Byrom Agreement. 9. Except as otherwise amended herein, the Hunt Club shall continue to abide by all duties and obligations required of the “Club” in said Byrom Agreement. 10. This Agreement shall be effective as of the transfer of the subject property, and unless otherwise duly terminated or otherwise amended, shall remain in effect until July 31, 2008. This agreement shall be binding upon the legal representatives, successors and assigns of the parties. WITNESS the following signature and seal: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BY____________________________(SEAL) Robert W. Tucker, Jr. County Executive BIG EIGHT HUNT CLUB BY___________________________(SEAL) Edward Lewis Vice President __________ November 10, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) THIS DEED IS EXEMPT FROM TAXATION PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 58.1-811(A)(3) AND 58.1-811 (C)(4) OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA (1950), AS AMENDED. st THIS DEED OF GIFT, made and entered into this 1 day of November, 2004, by and between ROBERT M. BYROM PATRICIA A. BYROM and, husband and wife, parties of the first part, hereinafter COUNTY OF ALBEMARLEVIRGINIA referred to as “Grantors,” and the , , a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, party of the second part, hereinafter referred to as “Grantee,” whose address is 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596. **WITNESSETH** That for and in consideration of the charitable purposes and mutual benefits existing between the Robert M. ByromPatriciaA. Byrom parties, and no other consideration, and , husband and wife, parties GENERAL WARRANTY AND ENGLISH of the first part, Grantors, do hereby grant and convey with COVENANTS OF TITLE County of Albemarle, Virginia, unto the a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, party of the second part, Grantee, the following described real estate, (“the property”) to wit: PARCEL ONE: All that certain parcel or tract of land situated in the County of Albemarle, Virginia, located on State Route 810, shown as Residue containing 115.35 acres, more or less, on a plat by Roudabush, Gale & Associates, dated May 24, 1990, recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle, Virginia in Deed Book 1114, page 511. PARCEL TWO: All that certain parcel or tract of land situated in Albemarle County, Virginia, located on State Route 810, containing 198.53 acres, more or less, being the parcel shown as Tax Map 6, Parcel 28 (307.22 acres), on a plat by Wm. Morris Foster, dated December 15, 1983, recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, in Deed Book 838, page 11; LESS AND EXCEPT 43.40 acres, more or less, shown as Tract C and 65.29 acres shown as Tract D on a plat by Wm. Morris Foster, dated January 12, 1993, recorded in the aforesaid Clerk’s Office in Deed Book 1306, page 730. PARCEL THREE: All those certain parcels or tracts of land situated in Albemarle County, Virginia, located on State Route 810, containing 285.71 acres, more or less, being the parcel shown as Residue of Tax Map 6, Parcel 29 (334.17 acres), and 38.68 acres, more or less, shown as Residence Tract, on plat by Wm. Morris Foster, dated December 15, 1983, recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, in Deed Book 838, page 11; LESS AND EXCEPT 42.87 acres, more or less, shown as Tract A, and 44.27 acres, more or less, shown as Tract B, on a plat by Wm. Morris Foster dated January 12, 1993, recorded in the aforesaid Clerk’s Office in Deed Book 1306, page 730. And being in all respects the combined area residue of Tax Map 6, parcels 28 and 29 of 484.24 acres, as shown on a plat by Wm. Morris Foster, dated December 15, 1983, recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle, Virginia in Deed Book 838, page 11; and of Tax Map 6, parcel 16 of 115.35 acres, as shown on a plat by Roudabush, Gale & Assoc., Inc., dated May 24, 1990, recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle, Virginia in Deed Book 1114, page 511 . Any and all easements held by the Grantors herein across and along Tracts A, B, C and D as shown on plat of record in Deed Book 1306, Page 730 are hereby extinguished and released of record. The real estate herein is conveyed subject to the easements, conditions, restrictions and reservations of record. This conveyance and the Property are subject to the following additional restrictions and conditions: A. The Property shall be used as a public forest preserve park that permits and encourages its use for forest education, hiking, camping, and/or other recreational activities; B. The public park shall be called the “Patricia Ann Byrom Forest Preserve Park”; C. The County of Albemarle, Virginia, shall construct a proper entrance to the Park and place a name plate or marker at the entrance honoring Patricia Ann Byrom and designating the Park as the “Patricia Ann Byrom Forest Preserve Park.” D. In the event that the County of Albemarle, Virginia, the Grantee herein, ceases to operate the Patricia Ann Byrom Forest Preserve Park in accordance with the conditions set forth herein, title to the Property shall revert to the heirs and assigns of Robert M. Byrom and Patricia A. Byrom in fee simple and absolutely without restriction; E. All of the foregoing restrictions shall run with the land and be binding upon the Grantee, its respective successors and assigns and successors in interest in the title to the Property, whether in fee or a leasehold interest. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, pursuant to the authority of a power of attorney dated July, 1999, recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle, Virginia in Deed Book 2833 at page 65, which power of attorney is valid and unrevoked, Robert M. Byrom has executed this deed affirming his name and seal hereto in the name of Patricia A. Byrom as her attorney-in-fact. November 10, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) The County of Albemarle, acting by and through its County Executive, duly authorized by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, accepts the conveyance of this property pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-1803, as evidenced by the County Executive's signature hereto and the recordation of this deed. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: ___________________________(SEAL) Robert M. Byrom, Grantor ____________________________(SEAL) Patricia A. Byrom, Grantor, by Robert M. Byrom, Attorney-in-Fact ____________________________(SEAL) County of Albemarle, Virginia, Grantee By: Robert W. Tucker, Jr;. County Executive __________ motion At 6:41 p.m., on by Mr. Boyd, the Board went into Closed Session in Meeting Room 235, pursuant to § 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia, under subsection 5 to discuss a prospective business locating in the County; under subsection 7 to discuss with legal counsel and staff specific legal issues regarding an interjurisdictional agreement; and under subsection 7 to consult with legal counsel and staff seconded regarding pending litigation. The motion was by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker. NAYS: None. __________ motion At 7:40 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session and was immediately offered by Mr. Boyd that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed session were heard, seconded discussed or considered in the closed session. The motion was by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker. NAYS: None __________ Motion was then made by Mr. Boyd to adopt a resolution requesting VDOT Industrial Access funds and to authorize the County Executive to sign the VDOT State Environmental Review Process seconded (SERP) Acknowledgement form. The motion was by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker. NAYS: None RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the University Real Estate Foundation (UREF) desires to facilitate the industrial development of property located in the County of Albemarle; and WHEREAS, this property is expected to be the site of new private capital investment in land, building, and manufacturing equipment which will provide substantial employment; and WHEREAS, the subject property has no access to a public street or roadway and will require the construction of a new roadway which will connect to the intersection of Quail Run (Route 1666) and Lewis and Clark Drive (Route 1571); and WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle hereby guarantees that the necessary environmental analysis, mitigation and right of way for this new roadway and utility relocation Or adjustments, if necessary, will be provided at no cost to the Virginia Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle acknowledges that the State Environmental Review Process (SERP) must be completed prior to any construction activity on this project as a condition of the use of the Industrial, Airport and Rail Access Fund. WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle hereby guarantees that all ineligible project costs and any other costs not justified by eligible capital outlay will be provided from sources other than the Industrial, Airport and Rail Access Fund. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County of Albemarle Board of Supervisors hereby requests that the Commonwealth Transportation Board provide financing from the Industrial, Airport and Rail Access Fund to provide an adequate road to this property; and November 10, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County of Albemarle hereby agrees to provide a surety or bond, acceptable to and payable to the Virginia Department of Transportation, in the full amount of the cost of the road; this surety shall be exercised by the Department of Transportation in the event that sufficient qualifying capital investment does not occur on tax map parcel 32-6A within five years of the Commonwealth Transportation Board’s allocation of funds pursuant to this request. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County of Albemarle Board of Supervisors hereby agrees that the new roadway so constructed will be added to and become a part of the road system of the Secondary System of Highways. _______________ Agenda Item No. 10. Adjourn. At 7:45 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, motionseconded was made by Mr. Bowerman, by Mr. Wyant to adjourn to November 11, 2004, 11:45 a.m. for a luncheon meeting with Charlottesville City Council. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker. NAYS: None ________________________________________ Chairman Approved by Board Date: 03/02/2005 Initials: DBM