1992-08-12August 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
M.B. 42, Pg. 109
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on August 12, 1992, at 7:00 p.m., Auditorium, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mrs. Charlotte y. Humphris,
Messrs. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Charles S. Martin and Walter F. Perkins.
ABSENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County
Attorney~ George R. St. John; Chief of Community Development, David Benish;
and Chief of Planning, Ronald Keeler.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by the
Vice Chairman, Mr. Bain.
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public.
Mr. Kevin Cox came forward and said as a result of canceling the August
19, 1992, board meeting the public hearing for a mobile home applicant for the
Planning Commission was also deferred. He wanted to bring this to the Board's
attention. This particular individual had a deadline on letters of complaint
which was July 22, 1992. On July 22nd, Mr. Cox went to the Planning Depart-
ment and found one complaint had been filed the last day. The complainant
spoke with the applicant and after that conversation the complaint was
withdrawn. It turned out that another ietter had arrived on the July 17th,
Ms. Patterson was on vacation, and it did not end up in the file. Mr. Cox
said no one told him this and no one told Planning. Finally, Planning found
out about the complaint and one of the planners told him that another letter
had shown up. The applicant was disappointed. The applicant was going
through the deferral process and his money had already been invested, he would
like to get on with his life. This is another one of those instances where
the special use permit for these type of homes is causing a lot of problems
for one particular individual. Mr. Cox said he believes the Board should
either get on with business and quit deferring things or do away with the
whole special use permit process for mobile homes.
Mr. Gregg Newschwander, resident of Keswick, said he has a son who
attends the Stone-Robinson school. Mr. Newschwander said that on May 28,
1992, he wrote to the Board to present himself as a candidate for the at-large
seat on the County School Board. This was the second time he had expressed an
interest and outlined his qualifications. Eights weeks after he sent his
letter he received a letter from Mr. Bowerman and he believes the amount of
time it took for the Board to acknowledge receipt of his letter is an absolute
disgrace. The letter he received from Mr. Bowerman clearly stated that he was
chosen to be interviewed and implied that he was unsuccessful in that regard.
The fact is, he was never interviewed at all. Mr. Newschwander said he was
contacted by the Clerk's office to schedule an interview, but he was scheduled
to be away on vacation the day the interviews took place. When he asked what
alternative dates were available he was told that at the present time there
were none but several candidates were going to be on vacation so it was likely
there would be one. Several weeks went by and upon his return from vacation
he called the Board's office to inquire about the interview process, he was
dumbfounded to hear that the seat had been filled and the process had been
ended. Mr. Bowerman's letter arrived two weeks after he called. What has
been in the press about the-process of filling vacancies on the School Board
coupled with the process as he has seen it~ is testimony of how badly in need
of revision the system is. He believes now that he never had a fair chance at
the School Board seat and since he was never interviewed and it would be
nothing short of dishonest for any Board member to suggest otherwise. He
thinks it is a sad thing that campaign support and particular political
ideology, friendships and past associations count for more in the appointment
of School Board members than those characteristics which would enable an
individual to function effectively as a School Board member. The fundamental
issue is one of fairness, to the candidates certainly, to the children, the
parents, the teachers and to the administrators of the Albemarle County School
system as well. It is not about who your friends are, who helped you get the
seat where you now sit, or who you think you like or dislike. It is not
whether a seat on the School Board is adequate compensation for services
previously rendered. It is about children, education, open-mindedness~
sensitivity, integrity, individuality, who is best for the job and not who the
job is best for.
August 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
M.B. 42, Pg. 110
Mr. Newschwander said that he, of course, thinks the Board made a bad
decision. He said that Mr. Marshall has shown on many occasions, beginning
with his teacher/student ratio speech that his very genuine concerns about
quantity have left precious little room for concurrent consideration of
quality. He objects more to the manner in which this Board carried out a task
than the decision itself. If there was even a shred of genuine concern among
this Board that the people get the best possible person to fill this position
then those who might fit this description would have been properly interviewed
and thoughtfully considered. Certain decisions do sometimes take time and
this Board owes him, as well as the people of Albemarle County that time. Mr.
Newschwander said this is the third time that he has come before this Board.
Since it appears there will be some time before the Board members or Board
complement will change, and since he is not fond of wasting time, it will
likely be the last.
Mr. Bain said in response to Mr. Neishwander's comments and others, this
Board did, last week, ask staff to review and bring a recommended procedure so
that in all the appointments this Board makes, there will be a standard
procedure followed. As to the at-large position on the School Board, the
Board did consider all of the applications received, and interviewed some
applicants. The Board made the selection which each Board member felt was the
selection to make.
Mrs. Humphris said, with all respect to what Mr. Newschwander said, she
believes there has been a mix up. She said she was one of the Board members
who insisted that he be interviewed. She remembers the Board had three
different possible interview dates and the information given to her was that
on each of the three dates he was away on vacation and not available to be
interviewed. The Board simply ran out of time. Mrs. Humphris said although
she agrees with a lot of what he said, she does believe the Board made every
effort it could, until the deadline, for interviewing and could not work the
interview in with his schedule. The interview did not come about because of
Mr. Newschwander's unavailability and the Board's deadline.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Mrs. Humphris made motion to
approve items 5.1 and 5.la on the consent: agenda and to accept all other items
as information. Mr. Martin seconded.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
Item No. 5.1. Memorandum dated August 12, 1992, from Robert W. Tucker,
Jr., County Executive, re: Fair Labor Standards Act Reforms. The board is
requested to approve a draft letter to {he Senate Labor Subcommittee and House
Labor Standards Subcommittee members regarding exempt employees.
The following memorandum was received from the County Executive:
"BACKGROUND: Judicial interpretation of what criteria are used to
designate exempt and non-exempt employees for purposes of the Fair
Labor Standards Act have nullified the overtime exemption for many
salaried employees. Many of the practices that the courts have
indicated may nullify the overtime exemption include sound person-
nel practices such as requiring exempt employees to use annual
leave or sick leave for absences of less than a full day, requir-
ing employees to work according to a regular work schedule, and
requiring time sheets that show hours worked each day.
DISCUSSION: The National Association of Counties has provided the
attached Alert to encourage counties to take a proactive posture
against the court rulings which appear to be adversely affecting
both the cost of providing services as well as management's
flexibility to use supervisors to accomplish organizational goals
even when it means extra time.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the draft letter be ap-
proved and sent to the attached subcommittee members.~
The recommendation for forward a letter to the Senate Labor Subcommittee
and House Labor Standards Subcommittee members regarding exempt employees was
approved by the vote set out above.
Item 5.la. Statements of Expenses (State Compensation Board) for the
Month of July, 1992, for the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's
August 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
M.B. 42, Pg. 111
Attorney, Regional Jail and the Clerk of the Circuit Court were approved as
presented by the vote set out above.
Item 5.2. Letter dated July 28, 1992, from Mr. H. W. Mills, Maintenance
Manager, Virginia Department of Transportation, stating that repairs will be
made to the existing structure located approximately 200 feet east of Route
635 intersection on Route 692, from 8 A.M. until 5 P.M. on August 11 was
received as information. ,
Item 5.3. Copies of the Minutes of the Planning Commission for July 21
and July 28, 1992, were received as information.
Item 5.4. Copy of the Minutes of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
for June 22, 1992, was received as information.
Item 5.5. Letter dated July 29, 1992, from Mr. Robert G. Crockett,
Public Relations Manager, Westvaco, in reply to the Board's letter of June 19
inquiring about the closing of the Ivy Woodyard, was received as information.
Item 5.6. Copy of letter dated August 3, 1992, from Ms. Amelia M.
Patterson, Zoning Administrator, addressed to Donna R. Frantzen, M.D.,
entitled "Official Determination of Category of Use - Woman's Way organiza-
tion,'' was received as information.
Item 5.7. Memorandum dated August 5, 1992, from Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg,
Director of Planning & Community Development, enclosing a copy of the condi-
tions of approval for SP-90-99 for Rappahannock Electric Cooperative, was
received as information.
Item 5.8. Copy of letter dated August 4, 1992, addressed to Mr. Lindsay
G. Dorrier, Jr., Director, Department of Criminal Justice Services, from
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, re: HB599 Funding Formula for
police departments, was received as information.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Tucker to give the Board information about the
meaning of the letter referenced. Mr. Tucker said under the Appropriations
Act, there was an item which directed the Department of Criminal Justice to
review the formula for providing 599 funds to localities. He believes this
was at the request of one member of the General Assembly to look at the
formula as it affected, primarily, urban core cities. The initial comments
received would affect Albemarle County in terms of its funding. Mr. Tucker
said he wanted to go on record to Mr. Dottier to make sure that his department
takes into consideration all issues. He also wanted the local legislators to
be aware of the request as well. Other localities similar to Albemarle
County, particularly growth communities, are all aware of it as well. These
counties are lobbying to make sure a fair review is received.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the 599 funds are state funds for the support of
the county police department and if the formula used favors the urban areas
and not the smaller counties. Mr. Tucker said he believes that the change
contemplated to the formula would negatively impact Albemarle County's
funding.
Item 5.9. Letter dated August 5, 1992, from Mr. James M. Bowling, IV,
Deputy County Attorney, addressed to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County
Executive,information.re: Frank B. Haynes, Jr. v. County of Albemarle, was received as
Mr. Bowling states that this case was tried in the Circuit Court of the
County on August 4, 1992. It was the first legal challenge to the County's
tax assessment process in over a decade. After hearing the evidence, the
Court ruled in the County's favor.
Item 5.10. Preliminary June, 1992, Financial Management Report,
received as information. It is noted that the projections for both the
General Fund and the School Fund have not changed since the May report, since
accrued revenues and expenditures are not expected to be finalized for at
least another two weeks, and General Fund expenditures still reflect the
minimum 1% reserve, not actual departmental savings. It is anticipated that
final balances in both the General Fund and the School Fund will be greater
than shown in these earlier projections.
August 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Item 5.11. Letter dated August 6, 1992, from Mr. H. Bryan Mitchell,
Deputy State Historic Preservation Offider, Department of Historic Resources
re: proposed Lickinghole Creek Sedimentation Pond, was received as informa-
tion, as follows:
"Our agency has recently considered the significance of an archaeologi-
cal site in Albemarle County according to criteria established by the National
Register of Historic Places. This 'significance evaluation' was made as part
of the review of a federal project, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority's
proposed Licking Creek Sedimentation pond, by the Environmental Protection
Agency. Our review of federally assisted projects is required by Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.
Based on a report provided by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority's
consultant~ we found that Archeological Site 44ABB416 is not eligible for the
National Register because of its low information potential. Please note that
the evaluation was made solely for the purpose of project planning."
Agenda Item No. 6. CPA-92-02. South Fork Land Trust-Hollymead. Public
Hearing on a proposal to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan,
Hollymead Community, to include approximately 30 acres designated for low
density residential land use. Property located on Route 643, i mi E of Route
29. TM46,P22C&98A. Rivanna Dist. (Deferred from July 15, 1992.)
Mr. Bain said Mr. Bowerman was absent tonight, but he did make a request
that the Board go ahead with the public hearing for this item, Agenda Item No.
9 and Agenda Item No. 10, but that the vote be deferred until September 2
1992, so that he could vote on these items. '
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development gave the following
staff report: ,
"Requests To amend the Comprehensive Plan to include approximate-
ly 30 acres known as South Fork into the Hollymead Community
Growth Area.
~ Proposal to change the land use designation of approxi-
mately 30 acres from Rural Areas to Low Density Residential (1 to
4 dwelling units per acre). This area is located on Route 643
approximately one mile east of Route 29 North.
~ During the update of the Comprehensive Plan a number
of requests were proposed to expand the boundaries of Hollymead.
These included Towers Land Trust, University Real Estate Founda-
tion, the Kessler Group, Donald Brown, and Terry Spaid. Staff
identified a number of issues and planning efforts which need to
be resolved or undertaken before an adequate review of Growth Area
expansion could take place. These include:
1. Development of a Community Facilities Plan;
2. Development of an Open Space Plan;
3. Development of a Fiscal Impact Model and analysis to deter-
mine impact of growth on the County;
4. .Resolution of the Route 29 Bypass location; and
5. Resolution of the Meadow Creek Parkway location.
Based on staff findings, the Towers Land Trust, UREF and the
Kessler Group deferred consideration of their requests until the
above noted matters could be resolved. The Planning Commission
and Board of Supervisors agreed with staff's findings, and decided
not to approve an amendment to the Plan for the remaining re-
quests.
Since that time it has been the Department's position that re-
quests for expansion or changes in land use in Hollymead not be
considered until all of the above-noted work is completed.
Remaining is the adoption of the Open Space Plan by the Board of
Supervisors, development of a fiscal impact model, and resolution
of the Meadow Creek Parkway location.
The Towers Land Trust has requested reactivation of their amend-
ment proposal based on recent Board actions to entertain amend-
ments to Hollymead (CPA-90-03, Wendell Wood, deferred at the
request of the applicant) and, Piney Mountain (CPA-92-01, Wendell
Wood, approved by the Board of Supervisors). To provide consis-
tency in reviewing Comprehensive Plan amendment requests, staff
indicated that with the Board of Supervisor's concurrence, the
Towers request, as well as other recent requests, will be reviewed
August 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
M.B. 42, Pg. 113
as part of a comprehensive evaluation of the Hollymead Community.
The Planning Commission, at its March 31, 1992, meeting, deter-
mined that the South Fork request should be reviewed in conjunc-
tion with the overall re-evaluation of the expansion to the
Hollymead Community.
The representatives of Towers Land Trust have recently requested
deferral of their request to address certain unrelated issues.
Staff decided to wait until these issues could be resolved before
presenting recommendations to the Planning Commission on the
overall re-evaluation of the expansion to Hollymead. However, the
applicant for South Fork requested that the Planning Commission
still review its request. Staff feels that with the limited area
and general nature of this request, it would be appropriate to
evaluate it individually.
Character of the Area: The area is undeveloped with a large area
of flood plain and a limited area of critical slopes. A wooded
area exists on the southern portion of the tract. The Rivanna
River is located along the southern boundary of the property and
Powell Creek is located along the eastern portion of the property.
The County's Water Resource Protection Areas Ordinance requires a
100 foot vegetative buffer along both the Rivanna River and Powell
Creek.
Of the 30 acres to be included in the Growth Area, it is estimated
that approximately 16 acres are developable - void of wetlands,
steep slopes, and flood plain. The largest contiguous area of
developable land is approximately six acres. The Growth Area
boundary would generally follow the 360 foot contour line that
runs through the property on the west and south, Powell Creek to
the east and Route 643 to the north.
The area does not lie within the Albemarle water supply watershed.
There are no agricultural/forestal districts or historic proper-
ties located in close proximity of the area.
Soils: Elioak Loam and Hazel Loam are the predominant soils in
the developable areas. Elioak Loam is deep and well-drained.
Permeability and water capacity are moderate. Surface runoff is
medium. Bedrock is generally at a depth of more than five feet.
Hazel Loam is moderately deep and excessively drained. Permeabil-
ity of the soil is moderately rapid. Available water capacity is
low. Surface runoff is rapid. Bedrock is generally at a depth of
more than five feet.
Comprehensive Plan:
ae
Meadow Creek Parkway
The Comprehensive Plan recommends development of the Meadow
Creek Parkway and associated collector roads to provide more
direct access to the Urban Area and downtown Charlottes-
ville. The Parkway is planned to be a four-lane road with
grass shoulders and bike path. These elements are expected
to be contained within a 150 foot right-of-way with partial
control access. The Open Space Plan (draft), recently
recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and
under review by the Board of Supervisors, recommends that
buffer areas be provided along the Meadow Creek Parkway.
The ultimate alignment of this Parkway has not been deter-
mined. The County has retained a consultant (Sverdrup
Corporation) to analyze current proposed alignments and
provide preliminary engineering and environmental analysis
for each. From this information the County can better
determine the most favorable alignment for the Parkway.
Work is expected to be completed by Fall, 1991.
Current proposed alignments of this Parkway include: (1)
Comprehensive Plan alignmen~ developed by Gloeckner &
Osborne, Inc., which shows the proposed Parkway impacting
South Fork; and, (2) the Charlottesville Area Transportation
Study (CATS) which shows the alignment on the east side of
the Southern Railroad causing no direct impact on South
Fork.
Buffer Area
This possible expansion area is located south of the Holly-
mead Growth Area. The Comprehensive Plan states 'The area
between the southern boundary of Route 643 and the South
Fork of the Rivanna River is to remain in open state as a
August 12, 1992 (Regular Night M~e~ing)
(Page 6)
M.B. 42, Pg. 114
buffer between the U~b~h Area and the Community of Holly-
mead. This boundar~ ~ Critical as it preserves the dis-
tinct identity of thy ~5~nity from the Urban Area and
prevents continuous development from the city along Route 29
North to the North Fork of the Rivanna. This area is in-
cluded in the Rivanna Greenway corridor and provides an
opportunity for passive recreational uses.' Also, the Open
Space Plan (Draft) indicates a greenway corridor along
Powell Creek.
Development on this. tract is expected to be away from the
Rivanna River and Powell Creek and nearer to Route 643 due
to the expansive flood plain. The owner of South Fork has
indicated willingness to provide an easement along the
Rivanna River for a greenway corridor° The owner has also
indicated the possibility of considering an easement along
Powell Creek for the same purpose.
Zoninq History:
SP-90-35, Covenant Church (June 19, 1990). Approved 800 seat
church on 10 acres zoned Rural Area. This request was approved
with a condition that the property would be limited to a joint
entrance serving the church and the residual acreage (which
includes the 30 acres under review). The applicant has agreed
that South Fork will be accessed by this joint entrance. The
Board of Supervisors, at its meeting of February 12, 1992, ap-
proved inclusion of the church parcel in the service area bound-
aries of the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) for both
water and sewer service.
SP-90-107, Unity Church (January 16, 1991). The Board of Supervi-
sors denied a request for a 300 seat church located on five acres.
(This five acres is a portion of the 30 acres now under review.
The Planning Commission had recommended approval of this item at
its January 10, 1991, meeting. The Board of Supervisors denied
this request primarily based on the Comprehensive Plan~s Meadow
Creek Parkway alignment severely impacting this property.
Availability of Water and Sewer: This property is not located
within the ACSA service areas for water and sewer service. The
applicant has indicated that a request will be made to include
this parcel into the ACSA water and sewer service areas. A water
line would have to be extended from Route 29. The Powell Creek
Sewer Interceptor is located on the South Fork property and
connection to this line would eliminate the need for septic
fields. Wastewater facilities including the Powell Creek Inter-
ceptor and downstream Moores Creek Interceptor have adequate
capacity to handle all wastewater generated from this development.
Water facilities are sized adequately to handle demand created
from this development. '
Transportation: This segment of Route 643 had an average 620
vehicle trips per day in 1990 and is currently tolerable. As
mentioned earlier, staff estimated that approximately 16 acres are
developable. Given a development density of one to four dwelling
units per acre, it is estimated that between 16 and 64 units can
be constructed. Depending on the ultimate number of homes con-
structed, this development would generate between 160 and 640
vehicle trips per day.
Fire and Rescue Service: The Seminole Trail, Earlysville, and
City Fire Department respond to structure fires in this area. The
Community Facilities Plan recommends an average response time to
fire emergency calls of five minutes or less in Growth Areas.
Below are the estimated response times for each fire department:
Fire Department
Response Time
Seminole Trail
City (250 Bypass Station)
Earlysville
5 minutes
8 minutes
8 minutes
The Community Facilities Plan recommends that a new fire station
be constructed in the Hollymead area to serve the Hollymead
Community.
The Charlottesville/Albemarle Rescue Squad responds to emergency
calls in this area. Also, both Earlysville and Seminole Trail
fire stations participate in the 'first responder' program which
simultaneously dispatches emergency medical technicians with the
August 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
M.B. 42, Pg. 115
rescue squad. The Community Facilities Plan recommends an average
response time to emergency calls of four minutes or less in the
Growth Area. Estimated response time of the Charlottes-
ville/Albemarle Rescue Squad is seven minutes. The Community
Facilities Plan recommends that a new rescue station be considered
in conjunction with the construction of any new fire station in
the Hollymead Community.
A possible fire/rescue site exists on the Forest Lakes South
property adjacent to Route 29 North and the proposed entrance to
Forest Lakes South. Response to South Fork from this location
would exceed the recommended response times in the Community
Facilities Plan for fire and rescue service.
Police: This area lies within Sector C of the County's Police
Department Sector system. Response times from the County Building
to this area are in excess of recommended response times in the
Community Facilities Plan; however, if officers are patrolling in
the area, response times can usually be achieved. Recommended
response times to all emergency police calls throughout the County
are ten minutes. Twenty-seven percent of all police calls origi-
nate from the 29 North Corridor. 'The Community Facilities Plan
recommends locating a substation within the Hollymead Community to
reduce response times to this corridor. Such a station has been
listed in the Capital Improvements Program for possible siting at
the entrance to Forest Lakes South.
Schools: SchOol-aged children residing in this area currently
attend Hollymead Elementary, Jouett Middle School, and Albemarle
High School. A new middle school in Hollymead is expected to open
in the Fall of 1994. At such time, middle school-aged children
will likely attend this school. As mentioned earlier, staff has
estimated that approximately 16 acres can be developed. Given a
development density of one to four dwelling units per acre,
between 16 and 64 homes can be constructed on this property°
Depending on the ultimate number of homes constructed, this
development is estimated to generate the following number of
school children:
School
Elementary School K - 5
Middle School 6 - 8
High School 9 - 12
(Possible ~ of Students)* 9 - 37
3 - 13
2 - 11
* Multipliers based on a 3-bedroom single-family detached home.
Parks: The Hollymead Community Growth Area is currently lacking
in District Level Park Service; however, once the middle school is
completed, reCreational service will be adequate to this area.
Currently, Community Level Service is being provided through
Hollymead Elementary and County Level service by the Chris Greene
and Rivanna Parks.
Library: Library service to this area is adequate due to the
close proximity of the Northside Branch Library at Albemarle
Square.
Availability of Low Density Desiqnated Land in the Hollumead
Communit¥: According to the 1991 Annual Report of the Comprehen-
sive Plan there are 317 acres of developable iow density land in
the Hollymead Community Growth Area.
Recommendation: As mentioned previously, the final alignment for
the Meadow Creek Parkway has not been determined. The possibility
exists that the final alignment could impact this property. The
consultant is currently analyzing various proposed alignments and
Will be providing preliminary engineering and environmental
analysis. From this information, the County feels the ultimate
alignment can be better determined. Expected completion date of
this work is Fall, 1992. Also, the Comprehensive Plan and Open
Space Plan (Draft) stresses the importance of this area as a
buffer area between the Urban Area and Hollymead. The Open Space
Plan (Draft) also makes a specific recommendation for the buffer-
ing of Meadow Creek Parkway. The Board of Supervisors is current-
ly conducting work sessions on the Open Space Plan and a decision
concerning the Plan should also be made this Summer.
Staff feels that any recommendation at this time for inclusion of
this property into the Hollymead Community Growth Area is prema-
ture until at least the above mentioned planning efforts are
resolved (Meadow Creek Parkway/Open Space Plan). These efforts
are expected to greatly enhance staff's ability to appropriately
evaluate this area. Therefore, staff recommendation is that the
August 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
M.B. 42, Pg. 116
South Fork area not be amended into the Comprehensive Plan at this
time."
Mr. Benimh said the Planning commission, at its meeting on June 16,
1992, unanimously recommended denial of CPA-92-02.
The public hearing wa~ opened.
Mr. Steve Melton, representing South Fork Land Trust, said the consul-
tants recommendations on the three alignments for the Meadow Creek Parkway are
expected in October or November. The major concern he has is getting the
Comprehensive Plan changed to include the South Fork Land Trust property into
the Nollymead growth area. As the Board knows, since CPA's are only heard
twice each year, this puts South Fork Land Trust "between a rock and a hard
place." If the study comes back showing the Meadow Creek Parkway will not
impact the South Fork Land Trust in any way, a waiting period of approximately
four to five months will be forced upon them. After that period South Fork
Land Trust would have to reapply for a CPA then there would be the rezoning,
subdivision plats and a site plan. Mr. Melton said during the Planning
Commission meeting, Mr. Blue commented that he thought the South Fork Land
Trust amendment for Hollymead would increase the value of the land. Mr.
Melton said he fails to see how this would impact the taxpayers, County, state
or whomever is purchasing land for the Meadow Creek Parkway if, indeed, it did
go through this piece of land. It seems that zoning would change that value.
Zoning still has control over what South Fork Land TrUst does with this land.
Mr. Melton said obviously, South Fork Land Trust would like to see it passed
so that the land is included in the Hollymead growth area, but they are
willing to wait so they can get some sort of relief and package a deal
together. South Fork Land Trust is also willing to work with the Rivanna
Greenway, Powell Creek and provide easements.
There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Benish said, in response to Mr. Melton's comments, according to the
policy adopted by the Board for reviewing the Comprehensive Plan, any Board
member can initiate a request to amend the plan at any time. The policy for
reviewing the plan twice each year is based on citizen applications. Second-
ly, there have been a number of requests for amendments to the Hollymead area.
One, in particular, the Tower's request has been deferred, but will be heard
shortly. He believes it was the desire of the Board to consider all CPA's in
the Hollymead growth area together. It appears this will be evaluated over
the next couple of months.
Mr. Martin said he does not believe Mr. Bowerman was concerned about
whether or not amendments were heard in sections or once every six months. If
the Board were to vote tonight, he believes Mr. Bowerman's vote would be
against this particular proposal based on concerns as to the location of the
Meadow Creek Parkway. He does not have any problem with sending this amend-
ment back to the Planning Commission or deferring it until after the plans for
the Meadow Creek Parkway are firm.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Bowerman indicated to him that he would prefer the
Board not take action or that this be heard along with all other requests for
the Hollymead growth area.
Mr. Bain said he feels the reason the Planning Commission denied the
request is based on the Meadow Creek Parkway. He feels this can be deferred
and whether it comes back to this Board with the other requests will be up to
the applicant.
Mr. Tucker suggested that if the Board defers this request it should be
set for the November 11, 1992, meeting.
Mr. Martin made motion that CPA-92-02 for South Fork Land Trust be
deferred until November 11, 1992. Mr. Marshall seconded the motion.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
Agenda Item No. 7~ SP-91-63. William Gregory Baldwin. Public hearing
on a request for a stream crossing in flood plain of unnamed stream located on
S side of Rt 706 approx 0.6 mi W of Rt 431. TM89,P81J. Samuel Miller Dist.
(This property does not lie in a growth area.) (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on July 28 and August 4, 1992.)
Mr. Keeler gave the following staff report:
M.B. 42, Pg. 117
August 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
"~h-racter of the Area: The property is currently undeveloped
with a rolling terrain and primarily wooded with deciduous trees.
Applicant's Propo. sa~.: The applicant is proposing to construct a
stream crossing for an internal private road to develop the Poplar
Ridge eight lot subdivision being reviewed concurrently with this
request.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan states a number of
concerns for activity in the flood plain including: 'Encroachment
into flood plain lands by development and other inappropriate uses
can result in increased danger to life, health and property;
public costs for flood control measures, rescue and relief ef-
forts; soil erosion, sedimentation and siltation; pollution of
water resources, and general degradation of the natural man-made
environment·. The Comprehensive Plan states as a strategy to
preserve water quality 'Restrict all clearing, grading and con-
struction activities to the minimum required for the proposed
development.'
S[___~y~h%RY AND RECOMMENDATION: As shown on the preliminary subdivi-
sion plat, the flood plain extends across the entire frontage of
this property along Route 706. There are no building sites
between Route 706 and the flood plain. Staff opinion is that the
stream crossing is necessary to build on or develop since this
property has no alternative access available.
The applicant has provided calculations and preliminary road plans
to demonstrate a four and one-half foot tall box culvert will be
adequate to pass the one hundred year storm. The Engineering
Department and Water Resources Manager have reviewed this propos-
al. The Engineering Department has stated their full support of
this submittal and the Water Resources Manager will require a
minor water quality impact assessment.
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with Section
31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. In consideration of the Engi-
neering Department and Water Resources Manager's final approval,
the stream crossing should not harm adjacent properties and should
not change the character of the district. Therefore, staff
recommends approval of SP-91-63 subject to the following condi-
tions:
RECO~NDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL~
1. Compliance with all local, state, and federal permit
requirements pertaining to disturbance of a perennial
stream;
2. Department of Engineering approval of crossing design
to ensure compliance with Section 30.3;
3. Approval by the Water Resources Manager of a water
quality impact assessment."
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 14,
1992, unanimously recommended approval of SP-91-63, subject to the conditions
in the staff's report.
The public hearing was opened at this time.
Mr. William Gregory Baldwin (applicant) said he was present to answer
any questions that might arise.
There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Marshall made motion to approve SP-91-63 for William Gregory Baldwin
with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Mrs. Humphris
seconded the motion.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
- AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
august 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
M.B. 42, Pg. 119
have to reshoot the lines. They have an easement but he still believes the
water line is on his property.
There being no further comment from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Bain asked Mr. Tucker if the Board could request the Albemarle
County Service Authority (ACSA) to make a determination of whether the water
line is on Dr. Word's property. Mr. Tucker said this is possible and Mr. Bill
Brent, Executive Director, ACSA, is present and may have some information.
Mr. Brent said he did not have any additional information. Mr. Bain asked if
ACSA would have time to look at the property to verify the location of the
waterline. Mr. Brent said it could be done.
Mrs. Humphris made motion to defer action on the request to September 2,
1992. The Board requested the ACSA to verify the location of the waterline
easement. Mr. Martin seconded.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote.
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-92-46. James E. Clark. Public hearing on a
request for a special use permit for 3 development rights on a 25 ac parcel in
order to permit 2 proposed dwellings and a parcel to be occupied by an
existing public garage. Property located on S side of inters of Schuyler Rd
(Rt 800) & Howardsville Turnpike (Rt 602). TM126,P31F. Scottsville Dist.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 28 and August 4, 1992.)
(Mr. Martin left the meeting at 7:45 p.m.)
Mr. Keeler gave the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: This site is developed with a garage for
Schuyler Enterprises and graveled storage/parking area. The area
surrounding the developed portion of the site is wooded. The
garage is visible from the state road (Route 602).
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct two
dwellings on this site in addition to the existing garage. The
dwellings are for the applicant's daughters. The proposed divi-
sion will qualify as a family division. The property will be
divided into three parcels. Each dwelling will be on an approxi-
mately 10 1/2 acre parcel and the garage will be on a four acre
parcel. The applicant, has stated as a justification for this
request:
'The subdivision of this parcel would allow the building of a house for
each of my daughters. Both daughters are employees of Schuyler Enter-
prises, Incorporated. They only wish to become homeowners and do not
intend to sell the property for personal gain. The dwellings would be
permanent structures, attractive homes, obscured by trees and vegetation
and not an "eye sore" to local residents. Also, these homes would
create additional real estate, plus personal property revenue in excess
of three thousand dollars annually.
I feel home occupancy would be a practical application since there are
not intentions of farming this parcel. Past history reveals that this
land has not been used for agricultural or forestry products, therefore,
there would be no contribution loss to either agricultural or forestry.'
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has reviewed this request for
compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 and 10.5.2.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan and does not recommend approval.
Planninq and Zoninq His%ozT: May 2, 1990 - Board of Supervisors
approved SP-90-11 allowing eight small lots on Parcel 3lA (the
parent parcel of the lot currently under review). (The plat
creating these parcels was administratively approved on May 31,
1990.)
June 21, 1990 - Staff approved the subdivision plat creating
Parcel 31F (lot currently under review) from Parcel 3lA.
September 18, 1991 - Board of Supervisors approved a request for a
public garage on Parcel 31F (SP-91-21).
Comprehensive Plan: T~his area is located within the Rural Areas
as recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan
August 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
M.B. 42, Pg. 118
3e
Compliance with all local, state and federal permit
requirements pertaining to disturbance of a perennial
stream;
Department of Engineering approval of crossing design
to ensure compliance with Section 30.3; and
Approval by the Water Resources Manager of a water
quality impact assessment.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-92-41 & SP-92-42. Bloomfield Inc. Public
hearing on a request to establish a con~ent & a pvt school on 63.66 acs zoned
RA. Located on W sd of Rt 677 approx 0.4 mi S of Rt 250. TM59, P12. Samuel
Miller Dist. (This property does not lie in a growth area.) (Applicant has
requested withdrawal.) (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 28 and
August 4, 1992.)
Mr. Keeler noted receipt of a letter dated August 6, 1992, in which the
applicant requests withdrawal of both petitions.
Mrs. Humphris made motion to accept the applicant's request for with-
drawal without prejudice. Mr. Martin seconded.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
Agenda Item No. 9. Public hearing on a request to amend the Albemarle
County Service Authority service area boundaries for "water service only" to
include a new single-family dwelling on Tax Map 60A, Parcel 9-4. Property
located on Georgetown Road, zoned RA. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
July 28 and August 4, 1992.)
Mr. Keeler gave the following staff report:
"This request was before this Board on July 1, 1992, and at that
time Mr. Cilimberg recommended denial of the request based on past
actions of the Board as well as specific language in the Compre-
hensive Plan which deals with extension of utilities outside of
designated growth areas. At that meeting, this Board requested
Mr. Cilimberg to look into questions which he responded to in a
Memorandum dated August 3, 1992 (on file in the Clerk's office).
Mr. Keeler distributed the subdivision plat showing the location
of the existing residence and areas available for locations of
dwellings (this plat is on file in the Clerk's office). The
Health Department recommends that wells be located 100 feet from
dwellings. Physically locating the well on the proposed lots
would be extremely difficult."
The public hearing was opened at this time.
Dr. Benjamin Word said at the last meeting he made a statement that
neighbors had called him and asked permission to run the water line across his
property to their houses going south of land between him and other properties.
He was surprised to hear that an easement was gained, apparently on the
property of his neighbors for this water line. The problem is, he does not
believe the water line is in the easement. He has been out with a metal
detector and has looked at things on the surface that would indicate where the
line runs. He is convinced that the water line is on his property. The
easement his neighbors obtained was for the properties bordering his property
but there have been a couple of things happening on that line and on the
corner of Georgetown Road and the corner of the lane that goes by these
houses. The initial stake that he knew about in 1953 when he bought the
property was in the lane that these people use to get to their houses. The
water line is on the edge of the road adjacent to his property which means
that it runs on his property. The highway obtained some land to widen the
road so that the corner pin had to be removed. This is the first time his
attention has been drawn to this area. He went today and there is a pin but
it is on the bank closer to his property than the road. He knows the line is
in the road.
Dr. Word said on the survey, which has not been recorded, it states that
the pin had not been set, not that the surveyor found the old pin. He can
only assume that the survey or went up on the bank adjacent to the road and
just put a pin in. The magnetic headings for that line coming up to that pin
are different from the ones on the plat when he purchased the property. He
does not know what to do. To prove anything, he assumes an engineer would
August 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
M.B. 42, Pg. 120
states, 'Additional lots are contrary to Rural Area preservation.
However, there may be parcels which could qualify for additional
lots under the ordinance criteria, especially adjacent to Growth
Areas.' The Plan observes that, 'The special use permit provi-
sion has resulted in very few additional lots approved since 1980,
which may indicate that few properties meet the establLshed
criteria.'
The Comprehensive Plan also states: 'Ail decisions concerning
Rural Areas shall be made in the interest of the four major
elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The four major elements are:
1) preservation of agricultural and forestal activities; 2) water
supply protection; 3) limited service delivery to the Rural Area;
and 4) conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources.'
Staff offers the following comments regarding the four elements.
The site has very limited use for agriculture and forestal activi-
ty due to soils. The site is not located within the watershed of
a drinking water impoundment. Th~ proposal results in one addi-
tional dwelling (over what would be allowed by-right) which should
result in a limited increase in demand for services. There are no
significant natural, scenic or historic resources on the property
which merit special consideration. Staff notes that substantial
soapstone deposits are in this area. The four elements stated by
the Comprehensive Plan are also addressed in latter portions of
this report under the criteria listed in Section 10.5.2.1.
STAFF COMMENT: Staff reviews all requests for additional lots in
the Rural Area under Section 10.5.2 of the ordinance. Since
adoption of the ordinance in 1980, 15 requests heard by the Board
of Supervisors have been for additional lots. Six petitions have
been approved for a total of fourteen additional lots. Board
approval has typically been based on a finding that the applica-
tion adequately meets the criteria of Section 10.5.2.1, such as
location next to a growth area or existing development, or has
some unique circumstance.
The Zoning Ordinance specifies criteria in Section 10.5.2.1 which
is to be used during review of a special use permit for additional
lots. The following is an analysis based on those criteria:
The Board of Supervisors shall determine that such division is
compatible with the neighborhood as set forth in section 31.2.4.1
of this ordinance, with reference to the goals and objectives of
the Comprehensive Plan relating to rural areas including the type
of division proposed and specifically, as to this section only,
with reference to the following:
The size, shape, topoqraphy and existinq veqetation of the
property in relation to its suitability for aqricultural or
forestal production as evaluated by the United States De-
partment of Aqriculture Soil Conservation Service or the
Virqinia Department of Forestry.
This property consists of 25 acres. Slopes in the area
range from two percent to 45 percent based on information
contained in the Soil Survey of Albemarle County. The
property is wooded except for the area occupied by the
garage.
2e
The actual suitability of the soil for aqricultural or
forestal production as the same shall be shown on the most
recent published maps of the United States Department of
Aqriculture Soil Conservation Service or other source deemed
of equivalent reliability by the Soil Conservation Service.
The Soil Conservation Service has provided a soils analysis
for this site and staff has prepared a map showing the
boundaries of the various soils on site as well as the
parcel boundaries and approximate locations of existing and
proposed structures. The Soil Conservation Service has
stated 'The soils on this parcel will have very little use
for agricultural purposes'. Several soils exhibit severe
limitations for development due to one or more of the fol-
lowing characteristics: slope, depth to rock, wetness, slow
percolation rates, seasonally high water tables and high
shrink-swell.
3e
The historic commercial aqricultural or forestal uses of the
property since 1950, to the extent that is reasonably avail-
able.
August 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
M.B. 42, Pg. 121
4e
The property has not been used for commercial agricultural
or forestal use. The area has numerous quarries both on
this parcel and adjacent lands.
If located in an aqricultural or forestal area, the probable
effect of the proposed development on the character of the
area. For the purposes of this section, a property shall be
deemed to be in an aqricultural or forestal area if fifty
percent or more of the land within one mile of the border of
Se
such property has been in commercial aqricultural or fores-
tal use within five years of the date of the application for
special use permit. In makinq this determination, mountain
ridqes, major streams and other physical barriers which
detract from the cohesiveness of an area shall be consid-
ered.
Seventy-five percent of the land within one mile of this
site located in Albemarle County is under land use taxation
which indicates commercial agricultural or forestal activi-
ty. The property proposed for subdivision does not enjoy
land use taxation and was included in the calculation of the
percentage of land within a mile used for agriculture or
forestry. Based on the percentage of land in use value
taxation, this site is within an agricultural or forestal
area.
Residential development in Rural Areas has both direct and
indirect effects. Among direct effect are: the vandalism
of crops and equipment and the destruction of livestock by
children and pets; the desire to regulate routine farm
activities by residents of the development (i.e., spraying
of pesticides and herbicides; spreading of lime and manure;
proximity of livestock to residential areas; commercial
timbering activities) and high land prices which makes it
difficult for existing farmers to expand and new farmers to
locate in the area.
Indirect effects are generally related to the expectation of
continued development in the area, resulting in the impres-
sion that agricultural land is in transition. Indirect
effects include: reduced or marginal production; disinvest-
ment in equipment, livestock and other aspects of farming
requiring large and/or long-term investment and idling of
farmland.
Development in agricultural and forestal area can change the
character of the area, not only in the immediate vicinity
but in remote areas. Increased residential traffic on rural
roads can result in hazardous conflicts with slower moving
tractors, fruit trucks and logging trucks. New or expanded
utility corridors through active farms may be required to
serve new development.
The above comments dealing with the effects of residential
development on agriculture are taken from the previous
Comprehensive Plan and have been included in all reports
since 1980.
Staff does not mean to say that this development will result
in all the above negative effects. Staff offers them only
as potential effects.
The relationship of the property in reqard to developed
rural areas. For the purpose of this section, a property
shall be deemed to be located in a developed rural area if
fifty percent or more of the land within one mile of the
boundary of such property was in parcels of record of five
acres or less on the adoption date of this ordinance. In
makinq this determination, mountain ridqes, major streams
and other physical barriers which detract from the cohesive-
ness of an area shall be considered.
One percent of the land within a mile of this site in Albem-
arle County was in lots of five acres or less on the adop-
tion date of the ordinance. Therefore, this is not a devel-
oped Rural Area.
The relationship of the proposed development to existinq and
proposed population centers, services and employment cen-
ters. A property within areas described below shall be
deemed in proximity to the area or use described:
August 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)'
(Page 14)
M.B. 42, Pg. 122
Within one mile roadway distance of the urban area
boundary as described in the Comprehensive Plan;
be
Within one-half mile roadway distance of a community
boundary as described in the Comprehensive Plan;
Ce.
Within one-half mile roadway distance of a villaqe as
described in the Comprehensive Plan.
The property is located 19 miles from Charlottesville, 11
miles from Scottsville, and 15 miles from North Garden.
Staff notes that this site is approximately one mile from
Schuyler which is located in Nelson County.
7e
The probable effect of the proposed development on capital
improvements proqr~mminq in reqard to increased provision of
services.
This proposal, if approved, should have a negligible impact
on capital improvements programming as it results in only
one additional dwelling.
Be
The traffic qenerated from theproposed development would
not, in the opinion of the Virqinia Department of Transpor-
tation:
a-- Occasion the need for road improvement;
b-- Cause a tolerable road to become a nontolerable road;
c-- Increase traffic on an existinq nontolerable road.
Schuyler Road (Route 800) and Howardsville Turnpike (Route
602) are both listed as tolerable roads. These roads cur-
rently have 1382 vehicle trips per day and 263 vehicle trips
per day, respectively, based on available information pro-
vided by the Virginia Department of Transportation. The
Department of Transportation has identified adequate en-
trance locations.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to
this request:
The soils found on this site are not suited to agricultural
or forestal use;
2e
Se
The proposed development will have a minimal impact on
capital improvements programming;
Schuyler Road (Route 800) and Howardsville Turnpike (Route
602) are both listed as tolerable roads;
4. Not in a water supply watershed;
Not in conflict with resources identified in the Comprehen-
sive Plan (Open Space Plan).
Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable
to this request:
Some soils on this parcel exhibit severe restrictions for
development;
2. The site is not located in a developed rural area;
30
The site is remote from Albemarle County designated growth
areas;
Based on use value taxation records, the site is within an
agricultural/forestal area.
Staff has offered alternatives which may permit the activity
proposed by the applicant without the need for this special use
permit. The two options provided by staff are:
Purchase additional acreage sufficient to permit the cre-
ation of a 21-acre parcel while retaining a 21-acre residue.
(Increase the parcel from its current 25 acres to 42 acres).
2e
Combine the existing 25-acre parcel with the original parent
parcel and seek approval of a Rural Preservation Development
M.B. 42, Pg. 123
August 12, 1992 (Regular Nig~%
!(Page 15)
which, if approved, would permit the creation of lots of
less than 21 acres in area. Staff notes that an open space
easement would be required as well as compliance with appli-
cable provisions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances.
The possibility of creating a Rural Preservation Development
was discussed during review of SP-90-11 (Kenneth V. Carroll)
which granted additional development rights for existing
structures on Route 800. It should be noted that the parent
parcel is under separate ownership, which could make recom-
bination difficult.
In response to these options, the'applicant has stated:
'The proposal of purchasing additional land bordering the existing
tract appears to be the best possible solution and one that I
would favor. Unfortunately, the mineral rights for the New
Alberene Soapstone Company on the neighboring parcel prevents such
a purchase. I feel the transaction with Mr. Kenneth V. Carroll on
joining land was incorrect for the following reasons:
o This land was purchased in April, 1990 without any restric-
tions except the New Alberene Stone Company, Incorporated
mineral rights.
o This joining land was subdivided by Mr. Kenneth V. Carroll
and the County of Albemarle after we made the transaction
with Mr. Vance Wilkins, Jr.
o I called to confirm the above statement with Mr. Wilkins,
Jr. on July 12, 1992. Mr. Wilkins stated he was unaware of
the removal of building rights, transferring them to eight
(8) houses joining this parcel. These eight (8) houses in
question are not up to State/County code standards of a
subdivision. There are no baths and not enough land to
qualify their single-family structure.'
Staff can offer the following regarding the restrictions mentioned
above. The owner of the parent p~rcels, S. Vance Wilkins, Jr.,
signed the plats creating the eight lots on Route 800 and Parcel
31F (the parcel under review) and both of these plats note the
restrictions of SP-90-11.
The proposed development can meet the intent of the family divi-
sion exemption provision of the Subdivision Ordinance by maintain-
ing the property within the family. However, the family division
exemption does not relieve the applicant from the development
right regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff identified one
other request for an additional development right involving a
family (SP-88-103, Lois Beckwith) which was approved by the Board
of Supervisors. Staff then reviewed SP-88-103 but found that the
current request bears little relationship to SP-88-103 and that no
precedent had been set regarding the issuance of additional
development rights in .order to accommodate family divisions.
Analysis of SP-88-103 reveals that the parcel involved in origi-
nally consisted of 3.3 acres. Additional acreage was added
administratively to increase the lot to 4.13 acres, however~ no
additional development right was obtained and, therefore~ an
additional development right was not permitted. The additional
acreage was purchased explicitly to permit an additional dwelling
to provide housing for an elderly family member. (In fact, a
building permit for the second dwelling was erroneously issued
prior to approval of SP-88-103.) The Board of Supervisors was
persuaded by the good faith efforts of the applicant to obtain a
second dwelling and was also persuaded by the nature of the
purpose of the second dwelling (independent housing for an elderly
family member). In its most recent review of additional develop-
ment rights (SP-89-57 Robert and Sandra Haney), the applicant
indicated to the Board that they might want to make the lot
available to their daughter and son-in-law. However, the Board
denied the application because development rights had been ex-
hausted and approval would set an unwanted precedent.
Staff opinion is that approval of the additional lot would have
minimal effect on the integrity of the four purposes of the Rural
Areas as described by the Comprehensive Plan. This request meets
somer but not all, criteria of Section 10.5.2.1 of the Ordinance.
Current zoning does provide reasonable use of the land and there
appear to be no other unique factors or prior Board decisions
which take precedent over the need to satisfy criteria of Section
10.5.2.1. (It should be noted that historically applications have
not satisfied all criteria of Section 10.5.2.1.)
(Mr. Martin returned to the meeting at 7:49 p.m.)
August 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
M.B. 42, Pg. 124
Review of this application has provided mixed findings. However,
based on the property's location away from existing development or
growth areas and past Board actions, staff does not recommend
approval of SP-92-46 for James E. Clark.
However, should the Board of Supervisors choose to approve this
request, staff offers the following conditions:
RECOI~IENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Staff approval of subdivision plats;
The parcel upon which the public garage is located after
subdivision may be used only as a garage in compliance with
SP-91-21. No dwelling unit shall be established;
3e
The proposed residential lots shall share a joint access to
the public road."
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission at its meeting on August 4,
1992, by a vote of 4/2, recommended approval of SP-92-46, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Staff approval of subdivision plats;
Approval of this permit allows two dwellings in addition to
the public garage. The parcel upon which the public garage
is located after subdivision may be used only as a garage in
compliance with SP-91-21 and no dwelling unit shall be
established on that parcel.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. James Clark (Applicant) said the purpose for the special use permit
is to build houses for two daughters with no financial gain or expected gain.
The houses are to be permanent houses which would be of good quality. They
will probably be lifetime homeS. They could walk from their homes to their
job where they work for the company Schuyler Enterprises. The land has been
tested by E.O. Gooch and also went to the warden with the Soil and Water
Conservation Service. They have also met with Mr. Bill Crome at the Health
Department and were told he would accept Mr. Gooch's report. Mr. Gooch-co-
drilled holes and tested the soil. He laid it out to where the Clark daugh-
ters could have septic systems and told them it would be fine to build on the
property. Mr. Clark said these two dwellings would be out of the sight of the
highway completely because the forest would not be taken out. The driveway is
already there and has approval from the State Highway Department. The lots
would be approximately 10.5 acres per dwelling.
Mr. Steve Savitt, a resident of Route 602, said he has two concerns with
the request Mr. Clark is making. One question has to do with how the deci-
sions made by the Board are supervised and enforced. Mr. Clark requested a
pole barn a year ago, and it turned into a truck stop on Route 602. This has
concerned people who live in the area. There were conditions placed on that
permit which stated that the hours of operation would be limited to between
8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. As a neighbor, he can-say
that this is not what has taken place. The operation of this truck stop have
been at all hours. He has come home at 12:00 a.m. and seen trucks pulling in
and out. Trucks have been in operation on Sundays. Approval also included a
condition which stated that no more than four tractor trailers could be parked
in the outside area at any one time. He has seen between five and fifteen
tractor trailers parked there. This is an ongoing situation. Another
condition of approval stated that there could be no outside storage of parts
including junk parts on the property. There are tires and junked tractor
trailers on the property. Mr. Savitt asked whose job it is to correct these
situations. He feels that if the stipulations on prior requests were not
adhered to, this request should not be approved.
Mr. Bain said there are 743 square miles in Albemarle County and the
County does not have people to police all of these areas. It is the job of
the Zoning Administrator to enforce the Zoning Ordinance and many times there
are complaints by individuals. If Ms. Patterson finds a violation on anything
in the County then she moves to enforce it, usually by letter and if that does
not work, she steps up action from there, and at some point it would be taken
to court.
Mr. Savitt said he and his neighbors have called and were told that it
is being checked into. Nothing has happened over the course of this entire
year. He took some photographs which he then distributed (a copy is on file
in the Clerk's office). These photos show anywhere from five to nine tractor
trailers parked at the truck stop. These photographs were all taken on
different days. His concern is that the neighbors feel it is their job to
monitor the decisions the Board of Supervisors make because they realize the
August 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
M.B. 42, Pg. 125
Zoning Administrator is busy. Personally, he already has three jobs which
take up to 80 hours of his time each week. He had to take off this evening to
come and speak and this is a loss of money for him. He cannot continue to do
this. He does not appreciate living in a warehouse district which is what it
feels like to come home and have trucks on the 'road. This is not a personal
attack on Mr. Clark since he does not know him at all, but he does not think
it is logical, given Mr. Clark's track record over the last year, that any
stipulations laid out for this request will be adhered to. Mr. Savitt feels
this sets a precedent for Albemarle County which is not a good one.
Mr. Kevin Cox said he hopes this Board will not make a decision on
unsound allegations regarding an entirely different situation. He has read
the staff report and was bothered by it. It seems inconsistent to say that
the reason staff is not recommending approval is because of the four major
elements of the Comprehensive Plan and then to go on to the next paragraph and
say none of those four major elements apply to this specific site. He heard
Mr. Keeler say tonight that this area really is not an agricultural district
because 75 percent of the land surrounding the site is in use value taxation.
Seventy-five percent of Albemarle County is in use value taxation and he does
not think it is a very accurate indicator of commercial agricultural dis-
tricts. Seven hundred people in the County are employed full-time in agricul-
tural and forestry activities and he thinks use value taxation is an indicator
of hobby farms and real estate speculation, not genuine commercial agricultur-
al and forestal. There are some people with land in use value taxation who
are engaged full-time in agriculture. He does not believe this is so with the
majority of people. Under the factors favorable to this request which staff
identified, there was no mention of one of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan
which he found in the Appendix which states "to promote a variety of safe
sanitary and affordable housing types for county residents of all income
groups." This is certainly what Mr. Clark and his family are attempting to
do. He thinks this goal should have been included. As the Planning Commis-
sion members said, there is no good reason to reject this request° It
provides housing for working people. They are not here asking for community
development block grant funds, they are asking for permission to house
themselves on land that is no good for anything else. He said he hopes the
Board will consider that these are working people trying to do the best for
themselves.
Mr. James Clark said Mr. Savitt is not a neighbor. He lives on the
Buckingham County line which is 15 to 20 miles away. Mr. Clark said he was
aware that Mr. Savitt had been taking pictures from time to time. Mr. Savitt
said that trucks are there all hours of the night. A truck may come in off of
the highway, especially on a Friday night, it may be late or may leave late
Sunday night to make delivery to New Yo~k City on Monday morning. The truck
could be parked there and not be worked on. Mr. Clark said he is allowed
eight trucks to be there, four inside and four outside. He has contacted Ms.
Patterson and brought it to her attention that on holidays there are trucks
coming in which are in excess of the number permitted. Most of these pictures
were taken during holiday seasons. From time to time there may be some tires
there. Most of the time they are kept behind the building because there is a
truck which comes through and charges $0.25 a piece to pick them up. All of
the neighbors who own land adjoining the truck stop will testify that nothing
goes on at the truck stop to disturb them. These people were not born and
raised here. They have been complaining and writing letters from the time
Schuyler Enterprises began operations. If they are violating their sPecial
use permit then that will be corrected.
There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Bain said the reason the Board is considering deferring action on
this matter until September is because Mr. Bowerman's sister passed away
Saturday night and he is out of town and will not be back until later this
week. Mr. Bowerman requested that this item be deferred so he could have
input.
Mr. Clark said if there is anyway possible he would like for the Board
to vote on this tonight. They went and bought two houses for the children and
are paying interest on them. They have them on hold and cannot bring them to
the site until getting approval. They did not know they were not allowed to
put these houses on lots until they went to get the building permits and were
told they were only allowed to get one building permit without a special use
permit. This has already delayed them three or four months.
Mrs. Humphris said she thinks the Board should always honor a Board
member's request to participate in the vote if at all possible.
Mr. Marshall said he, too, would like to honor Mr. Bowerman's request
but the Board did vote on the request just before this one.
Mr. Clark said he was at the last meeting and all items were voted on in
Mr. Bowerman's absence.
August 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
M.B. 42, Pg. 126
Mr. Bain said if the Board members want to take action tonight then he
thinks there should be some discussion of the request. If the Board decides
not to take action then general discussion should be held until September 2,
1992.
Mrs. Humphris said she intends to honor Mr. Bowerman's request.
Mr. Marshall said if the property was in Mr. Bowerman's district he
would probably agree, but this property is in his district and he ask the
Board members to vote on the permit tonight.
Mr. Martin said this is one of Mr~ Marshall's constituents. He feels
Mr. Bowerman's vote is a swing vote.
Mr. Bain said he feels Mr. Bowerman made this request because it may be
precedential, in that it is a special permit, but something is being done in a
rural area on the development rights part of the ordinance. This is one of
Mr. Bowerman's concerns. This is a special permit but it is changing the
development rights on a particular piece of property and increasing them in
the rural area.
Mr. Perkins said he would like to honor Mr. Bowerman's request as well,
but he also feels there are going to be times like this that the Board members
have to look at the agenda and decide whether or not to be in attendance.
There will also be times when members just cannot attend, but things have to
go on. These people have money invested and the clock is ticking.
Mr. Bain said the Board has had many cases come before it that have been
deferred for one reason or another. In times past the members have honored a
Board member's request to defer an item in his/her absence. Most of the items
in the past have been in terms of land use involving money.
Mr. Martin said if the request were from someone trying to develop
property for future financial gain he would agree to defer action on this
permit.
Mrs. Humphris said this is not the point which she feels Mr. Bain made
clear. The point is not this particular special use, it has to do with
development rights county wide that could be precedent setting. It has
nothing to do with whose district the property is in. It is a precedent
setting issue and this is the importance of Mr. Bowerman's being present. She
feels it would be bad not to honor Mr. Bowerman's request. It is not very
often that there is a death in the family and a Board member has to be away.
She thinks that since he did make the request, this Board should honor it.
She cannot imagine not honoring it, especially oD an issue that is precedent
setting.
Mrs. Humphris said she wanted to address the pictures Mr. Savitt
distributed. She does not care whether someone has lived in this county one
year, one month or 100 years, they have a stake in the County if they care
enough to come and live with and among its residents. She did vote against
the special permit which was issued for this truck garage and finds this whole
situation very disturbing. People tell her Mr. Clark is a very savvy busi-
nessman, but this man bought a piece of property with no development rights
and then he got a permit to build a pole barn on that property. The pole barn
turns out to be what is shown in the pictures Mr. Savitt distributed. The
action of this Board legitimized the trucking business after the fact, when it
was in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. Now, this same good businessman
says that when he bought this piece of property he did not know it did not
have any development rights. He wants to put these two houses on this
property for his two daughters which is, indeed, an admirable thing to do.
~owever, she feels that if the Board members do not like the rules, laws and
procedures which have been made by going through the process of holding public
hearings and the public establishment of comprehensive plans, zoning laws and
so forth, then these should be changed by going back through the process, not
by granting exceptions and establishing precedents in the manner in which the
proposal for this special permit is before this Board tonight.
Mrs. Humphris said she is deeply disturbed by the information about
Schuyler Enterprises' operation. She feels this has a baring on the request
for this special use permit. It causes her, as a member of this Board, to
have a lack of faith as to what may happen to the rest of the property and she
regards it as a public service on the part of the gentleman who came here to
tell this Board what is happening there. This County does not have enough
inspectors to go around this county and see what is happening and what is
being done correctly or in violation of the law. She hopes now, since this
has been brought to the Board's attention, something will be done about it.
Mrs. Humphris then made motion to deny SP-92-46 based on the fact that
she believes this Board should go through the process if it feels it does not
have things right in its laws and policies. She feels granting this special
use permit would set a very dangerous precedent as far as development rights
in the County.
August 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
M.B. 42, Pg. 127
Mr. Bain asked if there were a second to the motion. There being no
second, the motion died.
Mr. Martin said he sees this differently. There are no dates on the
pictures, but it appears there may have been violations on this particular
piece of property at some time. He believes this is a serious issue that
should be looked into and dealt with. He also sees a gentleman with 25 acres
trying to provide property for his children. Mr. Martin said the reasons
given for not being able to put a house for his two children on 10.5 acre lots
are too vague. He does think the pictures are important and agrees with Mrs.
Humphris that it does not matter how long a person has lived in the County as
to whether they have a right to come before this Board to complain about a
situation. The complaints should be taken seriously and looked into, but that
issue is separate from a man trying to donate 10.5 acres of property to build
one house per 10.5 acres for his children.
Mr. Bain said the staff report says the proposed development can meet
the intent of the family division exemption in the ordinance but even meeting
that exemption does not relieve the applicant from the development rights
regulation. If this is what Mr. Martin is saying, then he is talking about
changing the entire ordinance.
Mr. Martin said he thinks the reason for having special use permits is
for times when there are special cases. In this case, this person wants to
subdivide the land for his two children to have one house per 10.5 acres of
property. He understands Mr. Bain's and Mrs. Humphris' point of this setting
a precedent, but he believes this Board will have to look at the other
requests individually. When this Board begins talking about amending the
Comprehensive Plan this issue can be discussed. One of his major concerns is
that this Board is driving out middle income people from the County because
they can not afford to live here. A large part of that is the cost of
property.
Mrs. Humphris said Mr. Martin just said that if it is not equitable it
should be dealt with through a change in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Bain said
there should be something unique about this request in order for this Board to
approve it. How many people are there in the County who have no more develop-
ment rights? How many people are there in the County with only two more
development rights who and have three, four or five children? This opens the
flood gates for this issue and keeps it from being a unique situation.
Mr. Marshall said he disagrees. Two weeks ago when this Board held a
work session on the Open Space Plan he was against it for the same reason as
what is going on here tonight. The Opeq Space Plan is part of the Comprehen-
sive Plan and it is not a law but a guideline. This Board is the law as far
as zoning is concerned. He feels the people elected these members to repre-
sent them and change zoning or protect them.
Mr. Bain said the Zoning Ordinance is in effect, and the way to make a
change is to amend the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Marshall said the Comprehensive Plan takes away individual rights
from property owners and the opportunity for property owners to apply to this
Board for a special use permit to use the land as they want.
Mr. Bain said the County has a Zoning Ordinance. People know about the
Zoning Ordinance when they purchase land.
Mr. Perkins said there is also a provision for special use permits so
people can come before this Board to get approval to do the things such as Mr.
Clark is requesting. It is up to this Board to decide whether or not to
approve this request.
Mr. Marshall said Mr. Clark is asking to subdivide a piece of property
for two homes for his brother's daughters. He feels the two children have the
right to build on a piece of property that is not good for anything else. If
Mr. Clark wants to build two homes for his nieces then he feels this is fine.
He, personally, cannot deny this individual's right.
Mr. Bain asked Mr. Marshall what he would do with the next similar
proposal. Mr. Marshall said he would look at each request one at a time. Mr.
Bain asked how this one would be distinguished from other similar family
proposals. Mr. Marshall said he would distinguish it the same way he did with
this proposal. The Planning Commission could not come up with one good reason
to deny it. He feels that you cannot deny an individual his rights. He feels
County residents are left with an opening with the special use permit proce-
dure. Mr. Marshall said he will fight for this as long as he serves on this
Board. He then offered motion to approve SP-92-46 with the two conditions set
forth by the Planning Commission (set out in full below). Mr. Martin seconded
the motion.
Mr. Humphris said she is going to vote against the motion because the
current zoning law provides for a reasonable use of this land and there are
M.B. 42, Pg. 128
August 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
not any other unique factors or any other decision which takes precedent over
the need to satisfy the criteria that are set out in that section of the
Zoning Ordinance.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins.
NAYS: Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Bain.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
Conditions of approval are set out in full below:
1. Staff approval of subdivision plats;
2. Approval of this permit allows two dwellings in addition to
the public garage. The parcel upon which the public garage
is located after subdivision may be used only as a garage in
compliance with SP-91-21 and no dwelling unit shall be
established on that parcel.
The Board also requested the Zoning Administrator to investigate a
complaint made at the Board meeting concerning violations of SP-91-21 regard-
ing the hours of operation, the number of vehicles on the site and repair work
being made to the vehicles in the yard.
Agenda Item No. 11. Route 629, Request to abandon certain portions of.
Mr. Bain disqualified himself and asked Mr. Perkins to chair the
meeting°
Mr. Benish gave the following staff report:
"Two segments are proposed for abandonment. The upper segment
would be abandoned as public right-of-way from the Shenandoah
National Park to the end of State maintenance for Route 629. The
lower segment, a section of State Route 629, would be abandoned
from the end of State maintenance to a point 10 feet north of the
Doyles River Bridge. An easement of 30 feet of width is proposed
in place of the abandoned public right-of-way to allow for contin-
ued foot, horseback and bicycle access to the Park by the general
public and vehicular access by specified agencies. Additionally,
the Rippers propose to provide an improved parking area to the
reasonable approval of the County and necessary signing and gating
at the southern end of the abandoned road near the Doyles River.
Debris cleanup, basic maintenance of the easement and assistance
to the County and Park in law enforcement will be provided by the
Rippers.
Staff concluded in its report of November 8, 1989, reviewed by the
Board, that 'there appears to be a substantial public interest in
maintaining public access to the Shenandoah National Park which
outweighs the proprietary interest of the individual property
owner.' The Rippers have attempted to satisfy this concern in
their proposal. The primary feature of the proposal that is
positively cited is the retention of public access to the Park and
a formal vehicular parking area. Obviously, general public
vehicular access beyond the gate will be precluded and abandonment
will effectively end the road's service for that purpose.
Staff is unaware of any exclusive access to individual parcels
that would be removed by this abandonment. This should be re-
searched should the Board choose to go to public hearing on this
matter. The easement is proposed to provide for access by
'others having rights-of-way across the lands of the Rippers.'
Staff would also propose inclusion of access by other County
vehicles in the easement should the Board accept this proposal."
Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Attorney, representing the applicant, said he
would like to know how much information the Board would like to hear tonight.
He does not know whether the Board wants to hear a full-blown presentation,
nothing at all or something in between.
Mr. Perkins asked what action the Board could take tonight. Mr. Tucker
said the Board is to determine whether or not it wants to advertise this
request for public hearing. He believes this is the proper procedure.
Mrs. Humphris said she assumes this Board will take this to public
hearing, but in what form should it be taken to public hearing.
August 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
M.B. 42, Pg. 129
Mr. Payne said he does not know exactly what Mrs. Humphris had in mind
and deferred the question to Mr. St. John. Mr. St. John said there would be a
resolution abandoning portions of a secondary highway, Route 629, with a map
showing exactly what is being requested to be abandoned. This would be
advertised.
Mr. Perkins asked if the highway would be abandoned as a highway but the
right-of-way maintained. Mr. St. John said no, not under the proposal from
Mr. Payne. This Board could do that, or discontinue maintenance of this road
as opposed to abandoning it.
Mr. Payne said that idea misconstrues the proposal. That is not his
proposal. Mr. St. John said he understands this is not the proposal but he
would like to look into this as an alternative. What is being proposed is
really two separate actions that happen instantaneously, one after the other.
If this road is abandoned, the rights in the road revert to Mr. Ripper and
there will be no road there and no public right-of-way of any kind° It would
be as if there had never been a road there. The instant after this road is
abandoned, the applicant is willing to put to record an easement which is
different from a public road which would create, brand new, these rights for
the public to walk, ride bicycles and ride horseback on the 30 foot easement,
with respect to certain state agencies, Park and County. This is very
different from what you have now, which is a public road, and what it would be
if maintenance of that road were discontinued. This would only apply to the
part that is now on the secondary syste~. To discontinue maintenance means
the Department of Highways will no longer maintain the road, but the road
would remain a public road, however it would be a County road in the secondary
system which means the County could gate it, but if the County wanted to use
it or open it as a public road it would just have to be reestablished. When a
road is abandoned you cannot go back an reopen it. Ail rights for public
access are given up.
Mr. Martin said this request has been "knocked and kicked around" and he
feels the applicant has come up with a reasonable compromise, at least it is
considered reasonable by the Park Service, which is good enough for this Board
to send this request to public hearing to get public comment. Obviously, this
Board could not vote until after public hearing. He feels this request should
at least be sent to public hearing.
Mr. St. John said at some point, before this matter comes back before
the Board, not after this Board acts on it but before, the exact easements
that will be promised should be drawn up and the exact design of the gates
that will be put there should be drawn up and submitted to this Board. How
will the gate be made which will allow horses, bicycles and people through
without letting cars or motorized vehicles through and yet have a gate that
can be opened for vehicles from these agencies and other people who will have
the right to go through. He feels every detail of how this will work should
be before the Board before it acts on the request. He would like to see the
exact language of the easement before the Board acts on it.
Mr. Payne said he thinks this is unreasonable. What Mr. St. John is
asking for appears to be very extensive in detail work which may not even be
what the Board wants. The applicant has already established and identified
one change that he wants made. They do not have any objection to this one
change. They were not aware that it would be a problem. He can draft an
easement and he thinks the tone of Mr. St. John's remarks are misleading about
what is proposed to be done. The Supreme Court has recognized that the
abandonment .of highways subject to conditions is an appropriate thing to do
assuming that this Board thinks the circumstances warrant that. What is being
proposed is to have the abandonment be effective only upon appropriate
documents and structures being approved. What does it serve to have him draft
a detailed easement which may cost hundreds of dollars or several hours of
time and then have it be something the Board may not like the details or
concepts of. Second, he feels the applicant is entitled to have a public
hearing on this request. As landowners, he feels the applicant is entitled to
have the matter heard. He does not mean to be pushy but he does not feel it
is reasonable. They have spent many hours working with the staff of the
County and various Commonwealth agencies and Park Service people trying to
develop this plan. They are glad to spend as much time as it takes but it
seems that they are beginning to put the "cart before the horse". It seems
the issue here is the concept and the execution is something else. The items
Mr. St. John has identified are easily addressed, and if they will have to
have a drawing of how a gate will be built, they can certainly do that~ but he
does not know whether the Board would want something drawn by an architect or
by him and himself.
Mrs. Humphris asked if any agreement made between the County and the
Rippers go with the land. Mr. Payne said yes. He does not want the Board to
misunderstand. What is being proposed here is a property right in the public~
It would be dedicated just as any other public property is dedicated.
M.B. 42, Pg. 130
August 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
Mrs. Humphris said she is in favor of scheduling a public hearing, but
would like to have a memorandum from the County Attorney on the legal issues
involved.
Mr. Perkins said he agrees. Everything has to be laid on the table and
this Board has to have advise from its legal counsel as to what the best
to take to protect the public. Mr. Payne said he is suggesting that
the County Attorney should be reviewing the deed. The Board members probably
want to know the concept, but probably do not care about reading every word in
deed.
Mr. St. John said he has no objection to that suggestion. He does not,
however, want this road to be abandoned and the easement still be something
that is being worked on. Once the road.is abandoned it cannot be taken back
because the easement is not what it was thought to be. These documents should
either be on hand before the Board acts on the request or as an alternative,
the Board could hold the public hearing and indicate it will give approval
should the details be worked out.
At this time, Mr. Martin made motion that a public hearing be scheduled
on a request to abandon certain portions of Route 629 with the idea that when
this is voted on everything has to be approved by the Board or affected agency
before the abandonment goes into effect. Mr. Payne said this is the intent
and is in the petition.
Mr. Marshall seconded the motion.
Mr. Tucker said the public hearing could be set for September 16, 1992.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
ABSTAINED: Mr. Bain.
(Mr. Bain returned and assumed the chair.)
Agenda Item No. 12. Discussion: 'Additional VDoT Revenue Sharing Funds.
(Mr. St. John left the meeting at 8:47 p.m.)
Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report:
"BACKGROUND: VDoT has an additional $1.03 million in unused FY
91-92 revenue sharing funds and is making up to $100,000 available
to Albemarle County. This requires a $100,000 match from County
funds. The County has already budgeted $500,000 in the Capital
Improvements Program for FY 92-93 for a VDoT revenue sharing
match.
DISCUSSION: If approved, the additional $200,000 ($100,000
County, $100,000 VDoT) is recommended for the Fifth Street Extend-
ed (Route 631) project. This would then make other funds avail-
able for other projects that would be impacted by shifting of the
Meadow Cre'ek Parkway from FY 1999-2000 to FY 1996-1997. Projects
impacted by Meadow Creek are outlined in the attached memorandum
(on file in the Clerk's office). The additional $100,000 can be
provided from the CIP and General Fund balances.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve an additional $100,000 in county funds to
be matched with VDoT's highway revenue sharing program for the
Fifth Street Extended project."
Mr. Bain asked if these funds would basically cover the total project.
Mr. Tucker said this does not cover all of the project but is close. Mr. Bain
asked if the project is still on schedule. Mr. Tucker said yes.
Mrs. Humphris moved approval of an additional $100,000 in County funds
to be used to match VDoT's Revenue Sharing Fund for the Fifth Street Extended
project. Mr. Martin seconded.
Mr. Perkins said he intends to vote against this motion for the reasons
he has stated before. He feels that roads should be paid for by user fees,
gasoline taxes and so forth. He does not think the County should be spending
money to subsidize VDoT. He feels VDoT has too much money left over because
the counties do not have the money to match their money. He does not think
the counties will ever have the money to match their money. He does not know
whether state law limits how much money they can put in the reserve fund. Mr.
Perkins said he does not feel taxes collected from real estate and personal
property should be used to build roads.
M.B. 42, Pg. 131
August 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
Mr. Marshall said he is inclined to agree with Mr. Perkins even though
he would like to see the Fifth Street Extended project done. He will also
vote against this motion. (Mr. St. Joh~ returned to the meeting at 8:50 p.m.)
Mr. Bain said he believes Mr. Perkins is right but money has been put
into this before, knowing the need in the County for roads. This has all been
supported by real estate taxes as well. He feels it is real important that
the state is matching half given the needs the County has as far as the Meadow
Creek Parkway is concerned. Not that Meadow Creek will be built with County
funds but the County may end up doing something like that and if this Board
can get another $100,000 from the state, it puts the County's highway projects
"ahead of the game" and that it is important.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Bain.
NAYS: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
Agenda Item No. 13a. Appointments: School Board.
Mr. Marshall said he would like to nominate Mr. George Landrith, III,
for the School Board to represent the Scottsville District with term ending
December 31, 1995 replacing Dr. Valdrie Walker. Mr. Perkins seconded.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. -Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Bain.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
Agenda Item No. 13b. Appointments: Library Board.
There was a consensus of the Board to conduct interview on Septembe= 2,
1992.
Agenda Item No. 14. Cancel Board Meeting of August 19, 1992.
Mr. Martin made motion to cancel the August 19, 1992, Board meeting.
Mrs° Humphris seconded.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Bain.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Tucker noted that the Board members had received an invitation to a
Route 29 North Corridor Study Forum with State legislators from Albemarle to
Fauquier County at Graves Mountain Lodge on August 26, 1992, which is a
Wednesday, from 8:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
Mrs. Humphris said the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Policy
Board, at its last meeting, made a decision to involve the adjacent planning
districts in a corridor study which VDoT will fund.
Mr. Martin asked if anything from the Board had been sent to Mr.
Bowerman. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Bowerman requested that rather than flowers, a
contribution be made to the local SPCA in his sister's name. This has been
done°
Mr. Martin said a Mr. Booth who lives in Keswick owns a piece of
property on Tax Map 79-19 has asked Mr. Martin to petition the Board to expand
the water jurisdiction so it can include water to his property. He told Mr.
Booth he would ask, with the other Board member's permission, that staff give
a background report on the request at this Board's next meeting.
Mr. Bain reminded the board members of the upcoming Local Government
Officials Conference (LGOC).
M.B. 42, Pg. 132
August 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 24)
Mr. Bain asked if staff would make a brief report on the law suits filed
this morning. Mr. St. John said that three suits have recently been filed.
Two pertain to the Police Department. The first is a suit by Officer Kendall
Robinson against Sergeant Limerick and Chief Miller. The subject matter is
defamation of character. There was an accusation that he kicked one John
Payne when Payne was being arrested. The first suit by Officer Robinson is
pending in the Circuit Court of Albemarle County. The other suit is by that
same John Payne against Officer Kendall Robinson, the Police Chief~ Albemarle
County and an "unknown" state police for kicking him. Those two suits are
related and have been sent to the Division of Risk Management which is this
County's liability insurer. The Division will engage local law firms to
defend these suits and the County Attorney will work with those lawyers, but
will not be the lead counsel in defending these suits. There will be no
settlement without the County's knowledge and consent.
There is a suit in Federal Court by Mr. and Mrs. George Graham pertain-
ing to land use, but the papers have not been served on anyone yet. At the
time it is served, it also will be sent to the Division of Risk Management and
be treated the same as the other suits..
Mr. Martin asked if both police actions are in County Courts. Mr. St.
John said the officers suit against his superiors is in the County Circuit
Court, the arrestee, John Payne's suit against Officer Kendall Robinson, the
County Police Department and State Police is in the federal court and is a
civil rights suit. It is filed under the federal civil rights statute. The
officer's suit against his superiors is a straight defamation and malicious
prosecution claim. The land use claim is also in the states district court
and is framed in constitutional terms of taking.
Mr. Bain said he thought the land use suit would be done by Mr. St. John
as opposed to the other actions. Mr. St. John said he feels that the County
wants to engage in private counsel to defend this suit because its primary
thrust is monetary and not injunctive. They are asking for $2.1 million. In
a monetary claim like this, usually the Division of Risk Management will want
private counsel.
Mr. Bain asked if Mr. St. John's office would be involved in the defense
of these cases so that the County can file its brief from its perspective~
Mr. St. John said absolutely.
Mr. Bain said he would like for the Board to hold a meeting with City
Council soon. He asked that staff give a report on September 2, 1992.
Mrs. Humphris said in light of one law suit involving land use, she
would like to mention that she had the opportunity to read a report from a
Senate Committee on "The study of Small Package Wastewater Treatment Plants".
It was so enlightening that she thought if any other member wanted to read it,
Mr. Tucker could have it copied for the Board members.
Mrs. Humphris said she received a phone call from the group interested
in using Bloomfield. They need to get on an agenda as soon as possible
cause of the imminent school opening. Mr. Tucker said he believes Mr. Bain
requested the same thing last week. All that needs to be done is to direct
staff to put it on "a fast track."
Mrs. Humphris asked if the other members agree that this be done since
it is possible that Bloomfield could meet a school opening. Mr. Bain said it
will not happen that soon and he has told them this. Bloomfield was told
October and he does not think that date can be beat. Mrs. Humphris said she
got no information but asked that whatever could be done be done.
Mr. Marshall said that soon he would like to discuss the issue of the
transfer station at Keene. Mr. Bain said this should be brought in after the
Board hears the MRF study in September. Mr. Tucker said the intent was to
discuss this with the overall solid waste report.
Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn.
With no furthur business to come before the Board, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Chairman