1992-10-14October 14, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 427 Pg. 275
Page 1
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on October 14, 1992, at 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte
y. Humphris, Messrs. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Charles S. Martin and Walter F.
Perkins.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County
Attorney, George R. St. John; Director of Planning and Community Development, V.
Wayne Cilimberg; and, Deputy County Executive, Richard E. Huff II
Agenda Item NOo 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the
Chairman, Mr. Bowerman.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
Mr. Charles Wilson was present and expressed concerns about the Capital
Improvements Program (CIP). He also expressed concerns about an article in the
October 14, 1993 issue of the Daily Progress regarding a joint meeting between
the Charlottesville City Planning Commission and Albemarle County Planning
Commission in which they discussed planning for future capital projects and
improvements.
Mr. Jim Dillenbeck, Albemarle High School track coach, asked the Board to
consider moving resurfacing of the Albemarle High School track in the CIP to a
higher priority. He explained the current condition of the track and stressed
that the track is unsafe in its present state.
Ms. Belinda Mills, parent of a student on the track team, also urged the
Board to move resurfacing of the Albemarle High School track project in the CIP
to a higher priority. She also spoke about the unsafe condition of the track.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Mrs. Humphris made motion, seconded
by Mr. Bain, to approve Items 5.1 and 5.la, and to accept Items 5.1 through 5.4
for information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphriso
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1. Appointment Policy for Board and Commissions. The Board adopted
the following policy, by the above recorded vote:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
POLICY FOR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
A. CREATION OF NEW BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
1. On an annual basis the list of active boards and
commissions will be purged of all bodies not required by Federal,
State, County or other regulations, which have not met at least once
during the prior twelve-month period.
2. Whenever possible and appropriate, the functions and
activities of boards and commissions will be combined rather than
encouraging the creation of new bodies.
3. Ail newly created county-wide boards and commissions
which will have the power to impact the health, safety and welfare
of all the residents of the County, will be comprised of
representatives from each of the magisterial districts. These
representatives will be appointed by the members of the Board of
Supervisors following the same appointment procedure in Section B
for other magisterial appointments.
4. Ail newly created boards and commissions which include
members selected on an at-large basis will orient the terms of
appointment of these representatives around an April i/November 1
appointment advertising schedule, with all appointments being made,
if possible, within ninety days of the aforementioned dates.
5. Any newly created task force or ad hoc committee which is
intended to serve for a limited time period, may be comprised of
magisterial or at-large members at the discretion of the Board of
October 14, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) 54.B. 42, Pg. 276
Page 2
supervisors. The appointment process shall follow that adopted in
section B for other magisterial and/or at-large positions.
6. Any newly created board or commission which is comprised
of members selected at-large and, for reasons of emergency or
expediency, cannot comply with the April i/November 1 appointment
advertising schedule, will be considered a special committee or task
force. Members of this body will be selected by the Board of
Supervisors according to the appointment procedure in Section B for
other at-large appointments.
B. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
1. All appointments to boards and commissions based upon
magisterial district boundaries will be made by the members of the
Board of Supervisors. All magisterial positions will be advertised.
At the discretion of the supervisor of that district, selected
applicants may be interviewed for the position.
2. All appointments to boards and commissions will be
advertised en masse twice yearly on April 1 and November 1,
depending upon the appointment's date of expiration.
3. On April 1, on November 1, and fifteen days after the
aforementioned dates, a notice will be published in the local
newspapers which will outline the boards and commissions having
appointment positions available. Interested citizens will be
provided upon request with a brief description of the duties and
functions of each board, length of term of the appointment,
frequency of meetings, and qualifications necessary to fill the
position. An explanation of the appointment process for both
magisterial and at-large appointments will also be sent to all
applicants.
4. All interested parties will have thirty days from the
date of the first notice to fill out and return to the Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors a detailed application with the understanding
that such an application may be released to the public if so
requested.
5. Once the deadline for taking applications is past, the
Clerk will distribute the applications received to the members of
the Board of Supervisors for their review. For magisterial
appointments, the Clerk will forward the applications to the
supervisor of that district. After a two-week deliberation period,
the Board, or the supervisor in the case of magisterial
applications, will notify the Clerk to set up interviews with
selected applicants.
6. From the pool of qualified candidates, the Board of
Supervisors may select applicants to interview for the vacant
positions. For magisterial appointments, the decision to interview
selected candidates will be determined by the supervisor of that
district.
7. The members of the Board of Supervisors will begin the
interview process with applicants for appointments with the earliest
effective dates.
8. Selected applicants will be interviewed within forty-
five days of the close of the application period and all
appointments will be made no later than sixty days after the
application deadline.
9. For purposes of economy as well as to insure the
consistent operation of the boards and commissions, if a vacancy
occurs in the middle of a one-year appointment or if less than one
year remains in the term after the next scheduled appointment
advertising date (April i/November 1), then the Board of Supervisors
will select the replacement to the board or commission without
further advertisement.
10. If a vacancy occurs in a two-, three-, four- or five-
year appointment and more than one year remains in the term of
appointment after the next scheduled advertisement period, then the
vacated position will be advertised and filled during the next
advertising period.
11. Ail incumbents will be allowed to serve two consecutive
terms on a board or commission without his/her position being
readvertised unless~ based on attendance and performance, the
chairman of the body requests the Board of Supervisors to do
otherwise.
12. If a member of a board or commission does not
participate in at least fifty percent of the board or commission
october 14, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 3
M.B. 42, Pg. 277
meetings, then, the chairman of the body may request the Board of
Supervisors to terminate the appointment and refill it during the
next scheduled advertising period.
13. Where possible, terms of appointments on boards and com-
missions will be advertised based on the following time schedule:
April 1:
Advisory Council on Aging
BOCA Code Board of Appeals*
Community Action Agency
Community College Board
Fire Prevention Code Board of Appeals*
Health Systems Agency
Jail Board
JAUNT Board
Jordan Development Corporation
Land Use Classification Appeals Board
Regional Library Board
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority
Rivanna Solid Waste Citizens' Advisory Committee
School Board
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
Soil Erosion Advisory Board
Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvements Corporation
*On December 12, 1984, the Board of Supervisors voted to allow the
membership of the BOCA Code Board of Appeals and the Fire Prevention
Code Board of Appeals to be identical, while the boards themselves
shall remain separate entities.
November 1:
Airport Commission
Architectural Review Board
Children & Youth Commission (CACY)
Community Services Board
Emergency Medical Services Council
Industrial Development Authority
Jefferson Area Board on Aging
Planning Commission
Public Recreational Facilities Authority
C. ADOPTION
This policy shall be reviewed and readopted by the Board of
Supervisors in January of off-election years, at the beginning of
the term for new members.
Item 5.la. Statements of Expenses for the Sheriff, Commonwealth's
Attorney, Regional Jail and Clerk, Circuit Court, for the Month of September
1992, were approved by the vote shown above.
Item 5.2. Letter dated October 5, 1992, from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel,
Commissioner, Department of Transportation, re: addition of Marshall Court
(Route 1800) in Marshall Manor into the State Secondary System of Highways, was
received for information as follows:
"As requested in your resolution dated May 6, 1992, the following
addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby
approved, effective September 15, 1992.
ADDITION LENGTH
MARSHALL MANOR
Route 1800 (Marshall Court) - From Rt. 20 to 0.06
mile Southeast Route 20
0.06 Mi"
Item 5.3. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle
County Service Authority for June 18, July 2, July 16 and August 13, 1992, were
received for information.
Item 5.4. Report of services and expenditures for the first three quarters
of JAUNT's fiscal year, was received for information.
Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing on a request from Scottsville Town
Council for a boundary line adjustment. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
September 29 and October 6, 1992.)
Mr. Bowerman announced that the County Executive has an infection in his
larynx therefore the Deputy County Executive would be making the presentations.
October 14, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 4
M.B. 42, Pg. 278
Mr. Huff gave the following staff report:
"BACKGROUND: At its September 2, 1992 meeting, the Board authorized
a public hearing in order to solicit County-wide input into a
proposed boundary line adjustment for the Town of Scottsville. The
Option Five scenario most widely supported by the proponents of this
change would increase the Town of Scottsville's population from the
current 239 residents to approximately 477 residents, effectively
doubling the population. Option Five would increase the size of the
Town from the current 105 acres to 953 acres. The loss in tax
revenue to Albemarle County would be approximately $62,000 per year
using today's number of vehicles, school children, etc.
DISCUSSION: Assuming a total build-out of the Option Five area, an
additional 699 dwelling units would be possible under the County's
current Comprehensive Land Use designations. An additional 10 acres
of commercial acreage would be available, all of which would be
under the zoning, special use permit process and general land use
authority of the Town of Scottsville. TO date, the Town has not
committed any financial resources in their proposed budget for
planning staff and/or consulting assistance. Many small towns
contract with planning firms to give them the 'staff~ support
necessary. This is an option available to the Town of Scottsville
and one they have used in the past for ordinance development.
The issue raised at one or more of the public meetings regarding
refuse collection expenses is a valid one. As of the last public
meeting, the Town was charging $10 per month per household for
curbside collection. With the increase in the tip fee at the Ivy
Landfill as of July 1, 1992, it is doubtful that this price could be
maintained. This is, however, a function of the tip fee and does
not evaluate the appropriateness of the budget estimates used in the
Option Five projections by the Town.
The projected budget submitted by the Town reflects revenues which,
under Option Five, are $25,855 in excess of projected expenditures.
These funds are targeted for capital improvements but may also
provide some cushion until actual expenditures would be known. It
is clear that the Town's offer to drop their property taxes could be
reinstated at any time by Town Council and would be beyond the
County's control.
County records show that there have been 15 building permits issued
in the Option Five area since January, 1991. The County presently
has no responsibility within the Town for any type of building
inspection related functions including underground storage tanks,
fire prevention inspections, commercial, industrial, or residential
inspections. Likewise, the County has no responsibility for erosion
control or other related engineering functions within the Town.
Albemarle County Police currently patrol Scottsville on a regular
basis and would continue to do so under any boundary adjustment.
The police protection provided by the Town is in addition to that
which is supplied by the County and could be viewed as additional
manpower to the Option Five area.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff review indicates that the level of service
provided to Town residents under existing mechanisms is less than
that provided to County residents in the areas of planning~
engineering, zoning, building inspections and related activities.
If the Board chooses to proceed with a boundary adjustment, one
alternative might include a situation whereby the Town could
contract with the County to provide some or all of the services
within the Town's boundaries.
If the Board wishes to proceed with the boundary adjustment, a
description of the boundary line would be published in the newspaper
for two consecutive weeks followed by a petition from the attorneys
of both jurisdictions to the Circuit Court requesting the boundary
change. The judge, after hearing evidence on the line to be
changed, would enter an order establishing the new boundary line."
Mr. Marshall asked how many ofthe 15 permits granted in the last year-and-
a-half were for new homes. Mr. Huff said he did not have that information with
him.
Mrs. Humphris asked whether a change in the Town boundaries would have an
effect on the boundary for the magisterial district. Mr. Huff responded, "no."
Mr. Huff commented that he received a telephone call yesterday and the
question arose as to whether this adjustment would affect money the County
receives for the Police Department. It is estimated that the County would
receive approximately $1500 to $2000 less out of the $570,000 that it receives.
October 14, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 279
Page 5
Mr. Bowerman commented that the Board has held several meetings on this
issue. The purpose of this meeting is to get comments from other citizens of the
County. Mr. Bowerman then opened the public hearing.
Mayor A. Raymon Thacker, Mayor of the Town of Scottsville, said for the
past 18 months there have been public hearings and conferences on a boundary
adjustment for the Town of Scottsville. Due to disastrous floods and fires that
residents of Scottsville have suffered in the past, the population count has been
depleted. The Town is unable to get qualified and eligible personnel for the
various commissions and boards that are required and mandated by the Virginia
General Assembly and the Federal Government. The Town of Scottsville has not had
a boundary adjustment since 1866, while many other towns throughout Virginia have
had successful adjustments without any detriment to the County in which they are
located. The Virginia Supreme Court has ruled that in an adjustment with a Town,
the County does not lose any of its primary taxing powers. The real and personal
property taxes still come to the County and only a few ancillary taxes are lost,
such as utility taxes, automobile licenses, and business licenses. In a multi-
milliOn dollar County budget, the loss to the County would be negligible.
Mayor Thacker said the Town has provided financial statements on its
government, and has proven that it is conservative and intelligent enough to stay
in better financial condition than that of the Federal Government. Financial
statements have been provided which projects income and expenses of the expanded
option five. These statements show no spectacular gains, but enough to manage
the affairs of the Town. The Town has advised the Board that it wants to
maintain orderly and controlled growth in keeping with the County's Comprehensive
The Town has explained to the Board that it would zealously protect the
Totier Creek Watershed. No one has more at stake than the Town. Orderly and
planned growth, in the option five area, will eventually provide more taxes to
the County than it is now receiving. The Town is a part of Albemarle County and
always expects to remain as such. Mayor Thacker said he is representing
substantially more than a majority of the real property owners in option five,
and they, through him, respectfully petition this Board to grant this option five
adjustment. He sincerely wants Scottsville to be a viable community, constantly
improving the welfare of its people and adding to the well-being of Albemarle
County.
Mayor Thacker said realizing the importance of zoning, planning,
engineering and building inspections, the Town would prefer to reach some type
of contractual agreement with the County whereby these, and other related
matters, could be efficiently and correctly conducted.
Mr. Marshall asked that the people who live in the Town of Scottsville
stand (eight people stood). He then asked the people who live in the area
proposed for adjustment to stand (11 people stood). He said it is his
understanding that all the people in the proposed area are in favor of the
boundary line adjustment. In representing the people in both the Town and the
area of the proposed boundary adjustment, he has only had one letter and several
names on a petition that was signed opposing this request. A number of the
people who signed the petition were renters and not property owners. The
majority of the people in southern Albemarle are in favor of this adjustment.
He will support it on that basis. He feels this would be good for the County,
as well as for the Town. Scottsville is a historical town and he would like to
see it survive. There must be moderate growth or death will occur. In this
case, the Town needs bodies and these people, in his opinion, are just as capable
of managing their affairs as is the County. He feels that the Town is better
able to control its destiny and asks that the Board support this boundary line
adjustment.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak
regarding the proposed boundary line adjustment.
Mr. Forrest Kerns, President of Jordan Development Corporation, said Jordan
Development has a low income housing project that it operates on the boundary of
Scottsville. Jordan Development is not opposed to the boundary line adjustment
in Scottsville. It is concerned with the administration of the apartment complex
after the boundary line adjustment is made. He would like to know if there will
be any change in the way the project is administered by the Town.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the County would continue to administer the
apartments. Mr. Huff said that is something that will need to be addressed. He
added that if the Board decides to move forward, there are several of these kinds
of issues where the details would have to be worked out, i,e., a geographical or
physical description of the line, and administration.
Mr. Bowerman asked if and when this issue goes to Court, the Judge hearing
this request could grant the boundary line adjustment. Mr. Huff replied "yes,"
the purpose of the Judge's order is to make sure the boundary line is adequately
delineated.
There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Marshall made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve the concept
of a boundary line adjustment received from Scottsville Town Council as set out
in option five. In addition, staff is to bring back, at a later date, a
October 14, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. PG. 280
Page 6
description of the boundary lines and an agreement whereby the Town would
contract with the County to provide certain services within the Town's
boundaries.
Mr. Bain said Scottsville is an integral part of the County and he hopes
it will continue as such. He thinks the important issue is growth in the
Scottsville area. The Board addressed growth in its last review of the
Comprehensive Plan and recognized the need to provide limited growth. He
considers this adjustment as a County-wide issue, not just an issue for
Scottsville. He has made it clear in the past that he is not interested in
option five. He was willing to look at option four. There is still difficulty
with the broad aspect of the issue. He keeps hearing that the number of people
is the critical issue. Option four would allow planning. Option four has the
number of people. He thinks he could support option four but he is still
concerned about the financial aspects of the community.
Mr. Marshall said he disagrees with some of Mr. Bain's comments. Option
four has 66 dwelling units with a population of 167~ and option five has 94
dwelling units with a population of 238. Regarding the issue of growth, under
option four there is an additional population possibility of 824 people as
opposed to 1768 people in option five. The figures are not there in option four
and are in option five. He feels the last part of Mayor Thacker's statement
should have alleviated some of the Board's concerns when he made the statement
that he would like the Town to enter into a contractual agreement with the County
for planning, zoning, engineering and inspections. This shows that the Town
realizes it does not have the personnel to do that and is willing to accept the
County's help. In his opinion, nothing is changing other than giving the Town
the option to control its own destiny. These residents are not going to destroy
their water supply or make the community a bad place to live. To say that the
residents are incapable of doing this is an insult. Mr. Bain said Mr. Marshall
misunderstood what he said. He then asked how many people are enough. Option
four more than doubles the current acreage in the Town. Mr. Marshall said he is
looking at bodies and dwellings. Option five gives the Town what it needs and
as the representative for that district he has to support that option.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Bain if the financial loss to the County was his
primary concern. Mr. Bain said that is a concern, but he feels Mayor Thacker is
correct, in that, the total dollars are not a huge amount in either of the
options.
Mr. Bain said he thinks the board may need to address the issue of the
Scottsville apartments. That project is still an issue with many of the
residents. He thinks staff should consider administration of the project. Mr.
Marshall said he does not want to get into that issue because if it came before
this Board now, he would vote against it. In his opinion, the Town was right and
the Board was wrong which is exactly what he has been saying. The Town knows
what is better for it than this Board does° Mr. Bain said the issue is not only
the.Town but what is best for the County. The problem he has with the way Mr.
Marshall addresses many of the issues that come before this Board is that if it
is his district, he thinks it is number one and the rest of the County does not
enter the picture. Mr. Marshall said he knows his people better than any other
supervisor. His point is that he is bringing the thoughts, economic well-being
and segment of his part of the County to the rest of the Board. He said another
supervisor does not have to vote with him, but he feels he has a right to bring
this to the public as each supervisor does. Mr. Bain said his point is that he
rarely hears Mr. Marshall talk about the interests of all residents in the
County. All issues are county-wide issues no matter whose district it is in.
He listens to the concerns of the people who are to be immediately effected, but
also looks at the issue from a broad county perspective. He is not against
anyone or any proposal no matter whose district it is in. Scottsville is not a
county by itself nor is any other district.
Mr. Bowerman said he is drawn between Mr. Marshall and the Town's concerns
verses the comments and concerns that Mr° Bain has expressed. He asked Mr. Bain
his reason's for option four over option five. Mr. Bain said part of it is the
orderly progression and growth.
Mrs. Humphris said she has found this issue difficult, especially when she
wants to help the Town. When she tries to get additional information it is in
the interest of good decision-making. After going over all the information in
the last few days, she reached the conclusion that if there were to be a boundary
line adjustment, she would like to see option four pursued. The Town should be
able to find adequate people from a population of 987 to run the government. She
agrees that the role of this Board is to strike a balance in the best interest
of the entire County and the interests of the people of the Town in preserving
its heritage and allowing it to continue as a viable political entity. After
considering all issues, she believes option four provides the best of everything
the Town says it needs.
Mr. Marshall said when he asked the people to stand, most of them were from
outside of the current Town limits. This is a community and not just the Town.
Life will continue to go on just as it presently does with either option. He
will not second guess the Town Council as far as the number of people they need
because the Town knows its needs better than this Board. This Board voted for
Jordan Development to open the Scottsville School up to several undesirable
people and the Town had sense enough to see the future, but this Board did not.
October 14, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 281
Page 7
There is not a big difference between option four and option five as far as
dollars and land are concerned. Mr. Marshall said if there were residents from
other districts saying they oppose this request and gave a perfectly good reason
why it would hurt them, he would reconsider his decision, but there is no one
opposing it.
Mr. Bowerman said he will support the motion. He does not see a big
difference between option four and option five.
There being no further discussion, the roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bowerman.
NAYS: Mr. Bain and Mrs. Humphris.
(Option five is set out in full below:)
SCOTTSVILLE BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT
Estimated Dwelling Units
Estimated Population
Option 4
66
167
Option 5
94
238
Total Dwelling Units (Town of Scottsville) 121'
Total Population (Town of Scottsville) 239*
121'
239*
Additional Dwelling Unit Potential
Additional Population Potential
324** 699**
820 1,768
Total Dwelling Unit Capacity
Total Population Capacity
390 793
987 2,006
Total Developed Commercial Acreage
Total Undeveloped Commercial Acreage
Total Commercial Acreage
22 22
10 10
32 32
Total Acreage
Total Acreage (Town of Scottsville)
Total Combine Acreage
457 848
105 105
562 953
* Bureau of the Census, 1990.
** Data derived from a build-out scenario utilizing Comprehensive Plan
land use designations.
Note: Population + total dwelling units x 2.53 (average number of
persons per household - 1990 Census) except where indicated
by "*".
Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing on a request to abandon all Those public
rights on two segments of Brown's Gap Road (Route 629). (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on September 29 and October 6, 1992.)
(Mr. Bain disqualified himself and left the room at 7:59.) (Mr. Bowerman
left the room at 7:59 p.m.)
Mr. Cilimberg said he does not have a lot to add to what the Board had
already received. To summarize what is being proposed, there is a section of
Route 629 from Brown's Cove to the boundaries of the Shenandoah National Park and
two segments of Route 629 that are proposed for abandonment. One section is from
the end of the state maintenance sign to the Park boundary and the other section
is ten feet from the northern end of the current bridge over the Doyle River, to
the end of the state maintenance sign. The abandonment of those two sections
would be replaced with a permanent easement to the County for restricted public
access. The property owner proposes to provide an area for parking on the
northern side of the Doyle River, as well as, gating of the southern most point
of the abandonment to allow for pedestrian, bicycle and horse back access, as
well as, allow, through a locked gate, necessary public vehicular access. (Mr.
Bowerman returned to the room at 8:02 p.m.)
October 14, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 8
M.B. 42, Pg. 282
Mr. St. John asked Mr. Cilimberg the total distance of each segment. Mr.
Cilimberg asked the applicant to answer that question. Mr. Frederick W. Payne,
representing the applicant, said the total distance is approximately 1.8 miles.
The plat submitted with the application is to scale. There is approximately
eight-tenths of a mile from the bottom to the end of state maintenance and
approximately one mile from the end of state maintenance to the park boundary.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Payne showed a video presentation and Mr. Edward Ripper, the applicant,
explained each segment. The video showed the condition of the road and its
surroundings.
Mr. Payne said he could have walked the distance of the road faster than
he drove. The two places in the video where there were four wheelers and all
terrain vehicle trails was not authorized by Mr. Ripper; they were trespassers
on Mr. Ripper's property. Mr. Payne then provided the Board with the history of
Brown's Gap Road which was traced back to 1799. Since 1935, this road has been
used and/or misused by recreational users, which is basically all the use it has
because it does not go anywhere but to a dead end of park boundaries° No parcels
of land are served by this road. The road is entirely on property owned by the
Rippers until it reaches the Park boundary.
Mr. Payne said the road above state maintenance is nearly impassible. The
most dramatic problem is the trash dumping. It is difficult to look at that
trash without a profound sense of disgust that someone would take old kitchen
appliances, tires and dump them on scenery as beautiful as this. In addition to
trash dumping, there is also a problem with pollution of water. This water goes
into the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. The video showed oil, tires, parts from
old appliances, etc. It has gotten worse over time and he does not think it will
get any better.
The next problem is illegal hunting and trespassing. Hunting is a great
activity, but it is not right for someone to violate the game laws, trespass and
kill game on other people's land. That is also a problem in the Park. The
Rippers see the results of poachers all the time. It has not been uncommon for
the Rippers to find game, especially deer, killed and slaughtered out of season.
Mr. Payne said these problems will not occur without vehicular access. In
addition, there is no place to park. A person can park on the roadway or park
on the Ripper's property illegally, but there is no place to turn around. There
are no facilities for trash collection. The use of this road will increase and
the problem will only get worse.
A lot of time was spent on this proposal to address these issues. The
applicant is not proposing that there be no road or public access. The applicant
is proposing a cut-off of motor vehicles from the stretch of road, ten feet north
of the Doyle River. The reason this is being done is to address the problems
which have developed. It has been said that if this petition is approved, the
public will not have any rights and the public's access and use of this road will
be entirely at the Ripper's whim. There is nOthing that could be further from
the truth. If this petition is approved, the Ripper's will not have anything
that they do not already have and the public is not giving up anything. If the
petition is approved, the road will be in the same location; there is no proposal
to realign the road. The road will still be open to travel by any member of the
public and there will be no need to ask for anyone's permission. The road will
be physically open at all times. He has heard it asked how does the public know
this is going to happen. At the suggestion of the County Attorneys a deed of
easement was submitted and approved. The deed will be tendered to the County
conditioned on the result of this meeting.
Mr. Payne said the public will receive a dedicated parking area which is
something that does not presently exist and is needed. This will be built and
maintained by the Ripper's. The existing trash dumps will be cleaned up and
debris properly disposed of. The roads will be maintained by the Rippers.
Public money will no longer have to be spent on the road. This road will
contribute to help keep this area rural. The difference would be that there is
eight-tenths of a mile a person would have to hike from the proposed end of state
maintenance. The fact that this is supported by the National Park Service, the
County Parks and Recreational Department, the local Game Warden and the Highway
Department is good evidence that the Rippers are trying to rectify a bad
situation.
Mr. Payne said the final issue which is the technical question is what the
Board has to find in order to approve this proposal. Is there public necessity
for this road in its present condition? Does this road serve a public need? The
road does serve a public need because it provides access to the Park for
- recreational purposes. The applicants think that, with the conditions, there is
no public necessity for this road as it currently exists. Mr. Payne closed with
the following quotation "In my opinion, the current vehicular access does not
serve a significant recreational function but rather detracts from the experience
of lawful recreational users. The opportunity to have an improved parking area
with trail maintenance and supervision provided by the Rippers while, at the same
time, eliminating the negative element is too great to pass up." The County's
October 14, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) 54.B. 427 Pg. 283
Page 9
Director of Parks and Recreation, made this statement in a letter dated July 24,
1992.
Mr. Sandy Rives, Management Assistant for the National Park Service, said
his comments relate to access to Shenandoah National Park. The Park Service has
been consistent in its desire to keep trails open from the bottom of the mountain
up to the Park and he feels that the trails are vitally important to the future
of the Park as the County grows. The County has three entrances into the Park
which are through Brown's Gap, Sugar Hollow and Jarman's Gap. The Park Services
main concern is that these accesses remain open. The Park Service finds the
acceptable under the conditions specified. The Park Service believes
that a permanent easement with assurances for continued use and access to the
Park by hikers, bikers~ horseback users, and motor vehicles for emergency use is
better than the existing situation. Currently there is no ability to provide for
parking, trash pick-up and other concerns. He added that the mere fact that
vehicular traffic is reduced may not solve the conflicts that presently exist.
Mr. Jim Parker said he thinks this is a good idea and he agrees with the
petition. He is a hiker and although he is not familiar with this particular
road he is familiar with many that are in the same condition. He feels the road
either has to be opened and state maintained to the Park boundary or do what Mr.
Ripper is proposing. He does not mind the extra eight-tenths of a mile hike.
Mr. Charles Wilson said he has been hiking with the Potomac Appalachian
Trail Club (PATC) but is not yet a member, and is commenting as an individual.
He is in complete agreement with Mr. Ripper and with the representative from the
National Park Service. He thinks this would be an improvement. He also thinks
the Board needs to make sure that the deed restrictions cannot be misused against
the public in the future.
Mr. George Pipkin said the extra eight-tenths of a mile will be difficult
for people who may have problems with their legs. He use to hike on this road
every week. It was his favorite hike until approximately two years ago when he
parked his car before the end of the state maintenance sign, hiked up the road
about one quarter of a mile and ran into a big no trespassing sign. He then
turned around and went back to his car. Someone had put a note on his car
informing him that he was trespassing on private land and his license number had
been taken. The note also stated that if he returned he would be civilly and
criminally prosecuted. He is glad to see that perhaps some minds have changed
and this may be a reasonable proposal except for the fact that it will be
difficult to walk the extra eight-tenths of a mile for someone with an injury.
Mr. Dennis Yutchisen spoke against the petition. He feels the basic issue
here is being couched as though it will be a complete improvement of this
situation. He disagrees. He thinks the landowner will be granted a petition
that will improve the value of his land because it will limit the people coming
through and limit the use of the Park to the rest of the citizens. The hike
takes four to five hours without the extra mileage. If an addition is added to
the hike, it will make it an all day hike instead of a half day hike. He
understands that Mr. Ripper has some problems with this access, but these same
problems are along Route 29. There is trash there. Mr. Yutchisen said he is
willing to donate some of his time to clean up the trash. He does not agree with
poaching, and he understands that Mr. Ripper feels violated each time he sees a
carcuss on his property out of season. He also feels this request is not an
attempt to make it better for the citizens, but instead for the Ripper's personal
gain, and he disagrees with that.
Mr. Kevin Bishop, President of the Charlottesville Chapter of PATC, said
PATC fully supports the petition and feels the parking lot is a great idea. The
additional hike, at least for most members of PATC, is not a real concern because
they are out to hike. He then asked if the Board abandons the right-of-way can
the County continue to hold an easement.
Mr. Jeff Stafford, a resident of White Hall, said he uses the trail a lot.
He is an overseer of Jones Run Trail. Mr. Bowerman asked what an overseer does.
Mr. Stafford said an overseer is a volunteer of PATC who is responsible for
maintaining a section of the trails. An overseer tries to get to the assigned
area once every couple months to maintain the trails, get rid of the wood that
has blown down, and clean off the water bars, etc. He usually carries a shovel
to dig the water bars, and some tools. He also takes one of his children with
him. It is a good hike for them even from the end of state maintenance. It
would be completely unreasonable for him to try and trudge everything from the
bottom of the hill because this eight-tenth's mile is a high elevation° He feels
it is completely unreasonable to ask someone to park at the bottom of the
mountain and climb up to get to the Park. There are plenty of reasons to not
abandon the road to the end of state maintenance and twice as many good reasons
to not abandon the road at the bottom of the hill. He realizes Mr. Ripper wants
his privacy. He thinks the problems the Rippers are experiencing is common
throughout the County, and he does not see why he does not put up sign saying "no
poaching," or "no littering." The proposed restrictions are to motorized
vehicles and he does not know what the future may hold for this road. He would
not want to see the Board giving up these rights and then later realize a mistake
was made. He feels if this petition is approved, the County would be giving up
a lot and gaining nothing. He feels Mr. Ripper is trying to sell the County a
bill of goods. This road should remain County property. He, personally, has
been harassed when he has tried to use the road. In the last two or three years
October 14, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 284
Page 10
he has felt like a trespasser walking on this County road. No trespassing signs
are up. His daughter cut herself on the barbwire trying to get around the gate
Mr. Ripper installed. He resents what has been done since Mr. Ripper purchased
the property. He sees no value to the County for granting this request.
Ms. Sandra Davis, a tenant at the Rippers, said she is aware of the
vehicular traffic of the road. She wants to emphasize that late at night when
she is asleep she is awaken by large trucks on the road. She understands why
this is annoying to the Rippers especially because this is their residence. She
uses the road almost everyday either hiking or jogging. She sees a lot of trash
and dumping, and it is annoying. She feels the road is an asset to the
community. The community and hikers should consider it a privilege. She feels
that privilege is being abused by some. It should be left or reserved for those
who respect it.
Mr. Don Moore, a resident of the City of Charlottesville, said he is a
runner and a hiker, and has two children, three and five years old. He has
looked at the road at the invitation of Mr. Ripper. People have indicated that
there is nothing that will be given to the public for what the Rippers are going
to do. He has heard a number of things tonight to tell him a great deal of what
will be given to the public. This historic road will be preserved. The road
will be opened to travel to the public, people who want to use the road will have
access to it, and there will be a place to park vehicles. There was a comment
made about carrying children onto the road. Frankly, he would not carry his
children up on that road as it currently exists because of the vehicular traffic.
The road is one lane and almost impassable. The Rippers have proposed to give
a permanent easement to the County and take on the expense of maintaining the
road. The Rippers will grade the road, improve it, clean it and mark it as a
historical trail. This grants a great deal of value to the public and to someone
who may use the property. There will also be a parking lot at the bottom with
an appropriate marker at the gate indicating that the public can use the road and
is invited onto the property. The one down side to this proposal is that there
will be no motor vehicles on the road. He feels this is a small and
insignificant price to pay. This will make it safer for the other recreational
users, people on horseback, bikers and hikers.
A person who did not identify himself said he does a lot of horseback
riding on Brown's Gap Road. There are not too many places where a car could meet
a horse. The road is very steep and there are many places where it is dangerous°
There are also places where the road has been washed out which has caused ruts.
He supports the proposal of abandoning the road because he has met all terrain
vehicles on that road and the drivers do not respect the speed limit. This seems
to be a perfectly reasonable idea since everyone will still get to use it.
Mr. Craig Van de Castle said he enjoys this area. He questions some of the
statements Mr. Ripper and his attorney have made. This is a mountainous road and
needs maintenance and he does not feel there is anything new about that. A lot
of the dumping problems mentioned could be taken care of in a one-time clean-up.
Illegal dumping is a county-wide problem, not particular to this stretch of road.
Public rights should not be abandoned because of this problem° Me does not see
a compelling reason regarding the problem of maintenance. He does not feel the
reasons mentioned are impossible to overcome and would require the abandonment
of these rights. He thinks the idea of parking is good, and asked how much
parking there would be. Ne feels the Board should not act to hastily on this
request. There are solutions to the problem if they are thought out.
Ms. Jill Marks, a landscape architect and resident of Burnl'ey Station, said
restricting access to the Park is a precedent that the Board should not set. She
feels that the more access allowed to the Park, the less trash, poaching and
trespassing will be found because there will be more people watching the area and
taking responsibility.
Mr. Gary McClay, a former resident of the Ripper's property, said he is
also a hiker and a former boy scout leader. Ne thinks that all the problems are
made worse by motor vehicular traffic. Walking this additional distance is not
a burden. One problem he noticed when he lived there that has not been mentioned
is parking. He has seen cars parked in the road and they could not be passed.
Frequently, the only place to turn around is blocked by cars. He urged the Board
to approve this request.
Mr. Bruce Sullivan said this issue is not new, and when Mr. Ripper came
here in 1989 the first thing he did was put up a big steel gate with barbwire
wrapped around the post, a lock and a no trespassing sign. He feels Mr. Ripper
knew it was illegal to install the gate and his attorney should have known it was
illegal. The taxpayers had to bare the expense of a federal lawsuit to get the
gate removed. Now, Mr. Ripper has a new plan. He feels if the Board approves
this petition to abandon this road, that action will go down as a case that the
people lost. A case where a wealthy man came to Albemarle County, bought some
land, hired a good attorney and lobbied public officials extensively. If
approved, the people will lose a valuable resource.
Mr. David Smith, a former resident of Briteberry, said he spent many nights
sitting on the front porch of his house watching traffic. He is surprised by all
of the hikers present because the majority of the traffic that goes through there
is vehicular traffic. The problem is policing the area to keep illegal dumping
from happening. He feels the proposal is very good. The hikers that he has seen
october 14, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) 54.B. 427 Pg. 285
Page 11
do not drive four wheel drive vehicles on a regular basis; they drive cars and
have to stop at the end of state maintenance. He urged the Board to support this
proposal.
Mr. Phil Sheridan said his position in this matter is not as an adversary
of Mr. and Mrs. Ripper, but as a neighbor and one who sympathizes with the
problem of poachers, litterers, violators and vandals. All residents of the
County have been dealing with these problems for a long time, but he does not
agree with the Rippers that the citizens of the County should give up their
rights to protect the Ripper's land. This is not an issue of landowners rights.
It is an issue of citizen and individual rights. The Rippers have a right to
post, fence and allow on their land who they want. Mr. Ripper was kind enough
to bring him his proposal last weekend, but he was not home and did not get to
meet him. He does not think the citizens of the County should give up the rights
of that road. He does not feel Mr. Ripper is giving the citizens of the County
any more then they already have. Right now the road is 30 feet wide. It is a
mountain road and Mr. Ripper bought that mountain road. He also bought the
garbage dump and the public road at the same time. Mr. Ripper knew it was a
public road and that it was abused because there was no one looking after it.
There is already parking and the right-of-way is there. He does not see anything
the County would gain. Mr. Ripper would have tax deductions from giving up the
right-of-way and cleaning the road at his expense. Another advantage to Mr.
Ripper is that he would have a bridge, maintained at the County's expense, for
virtually a road of his use. In addition, a right-of-way easement or permission
to trespass can be taken away. He feels the County and the citizens would be
losing more than they would gain. As an alternative, he thinks this would be a
great opportunity for the County Parks and Recreation Department to develop the
property with the help of Trout Unlimited, the Isaac Walton League, Boy Scouts,
Girl Scouts or even the people at the Brown's Cove Church. There are people
willing to help clean, maintain and preserve the area.
Mr. Kieth Burger said he spent a year working at Mr. Ripper's residence and
most of the people who have spoke tonight were speaking of times in the
afternoon, after work and weekends. He was there 40 to 50 hours a week during
the day. The kind of traffic he saw were not cars or hikers; it was pick-up
trucks with garbage, hunters and children riding on dirt bikes. He did not see
a lot of people going up the mountain just to hike. He would occasionally hike
there during his lunch hour and after work. The area is not a busy hiking area.
The view to hike is worth the extra eight-tenths of a mile. He feels the road
should be closed and people can walk a little further.
Ms. Rita Beard, founder of the Charlottesville Chapter of Potomac
Appalachian Trail Club (PATC), said she talked to representatives of PATC in
Washington and one of the things they asked was if Mr. Ripper got his easement,
would he be willing to donate the parking lot to PATC, and PATC would provide
maintenance. The other request would be that PATC be given a permit for people
who are overseers of the trails which they would display in their car
windshields. PATC suggests that there are organizations that could help clean
up the trash and dump sites.
Mr. Mack Woodard, National Director of The Isaac Walton League, said he
hopes the Board will work to keep land more open to the public. He thinks this
issue should be deferred for one year or so to rethink this request and ask some
of the groups to help clean up the property. He feels some other creative ways
could be thought of. There are a lot of people who have a vested interest in
this old road. The League hopes the Board will think of this carefully before
acting.
Mr. Paul Burke said the petition states that the road is no longer
necessary for public use. He disagrees. This road is one of the two most
historic roads in the County. A lot of people in the United States, outside of
this County, come to see and walk the road made famous by Stonewall Jackson. He
believes the Board is aware that the Virginia Supreme Court, in April of this
year, ruled that scenic and recreation access is a legitimate public purpose, and
there is a need to keep the road open. This road goes through areas of great
scenic beauty and fishing. The Supreme Court also ruled that trespassing and
trashing by law breakers who use a road is a law enforcement problem and not
grounds to abandon a road. He travelled the road not more than two weeks ago and
saw little trash. He did see one top of a camper that looked like it had been
recently placed there. He questions why the petitioner would make any
concessions if there was not a public need or use of the road. For that reason
the Board should not abandon the road. The petitioner stated that there is no
longer any public necessity for continuation of this road as a means of vehicular
travel. He assured the Board that if a person is physically out of shape, have
young children, elderly or handicapped, vehicular access, is not only essential,
but is a necessity.
Mr. Dave Budd, an avid hiker of Route 629 and surrounding areas, said in
his opinion, prohibiting vehicular access to Route 629 will benefit the majority
of the hikers who use the road.
Ms. Jeanne Brown said her father's family settled Brown's Cove in 1742~
after moving up from Hanover. She is wondering why people who come to this area
for the beauty, historic value, lifestyle, etc., come here and then
systematically either unwittingly, wittingly or for monetary gain fret about
destroying the reason they say they came here. She thinks there can be a
]October 14, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 286
Page 12
compromise. She would like to begin something that would perhaps relieve the
Rippers of their problems. She would like to adopt this road. She has the funds
to do it and is able with some help from her family to post the historic markers.
When a road such as this is abandoned it kills the tourist industry. People do
not come to Virginia to see a parking lot in the mountains. When people come
they want to hike the wilderness and enjoy what this area has to offer.
Mr. Cilimberg submitted, for the record, a letter from Mr. Bruce Gordon,
a resident of White Hall and member of PATC, and a letter from Ms. Martha Covax,
a resident of White Hall and representative of Virginians for Wilderness, both
strongly endorsing the Rippers request to abandon Route 629 to vehicular traffic.
Mr. Ripper next addressed the Board. Mr. Ripper said the first and
critical point is the reason Mr. Bain is not participating in this discussion.
Before he purchased this farm he hired Mr. Bain as his settlement attorney. He
was concerned that this road ran through the middle of the property. As a
condition to purchasing the property, he based the purchase of the property on
absolute assurances from Mr. Bain that he had a legal right to erect a gate at
the end of state maintenance. Only on the basis of his attorney's assurances did
he purchase Briteberry Farm. Mr. Ripper said Mr. Bain also told him to begin to
reserve his right by denying all access to the upper part of the property and
people would not be able to go there. He was also told not to allow access and
try to maintain that right to have the gate there. This was done pursuant to
advise from his attorney. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Ripper if he understood that
Mr. Bain cannot comment on what was said because he has removed himself from this
discussion. By disqualifying himself, Mr. Bain cannot defend himself to these
allegations. Mr. St. John said he believes Mr. Ripper is aware that Mr. Bain
vehemently denies what Mr. Ripper is saying.
Mr. Ripper said he does not mean to put Mr. Bain on the spot, but people
have accused him of doing a lot of heinous things and the niece of Briteberry
Brown commented that he should have known that and looked into that. His
purchase agreement with the previous owner clearly stated that there would be a
60-day period in which the status of this road would be investigated, and on that
basis, he purchased the land, and the weekend after it was purchased he erected
the gate. He would not have put that provision in the contract if it did not
mean something. Mr. Ripper said he and his wife hope to move here within three
years. They are not "carpet baggers" from the North. They were both born in
Virginia and have lived all of their life in Virginia. They are doing this
exclusively for their gain.
Mr. Perkins asked what other easements there are on this property. Mr.
Payne said the only easements he is aware of are for public utilities.
There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
The Board recessed at 9:50 p.m. and reconvened at 10:05 p.m.
Mr. Perkins said he feels by limiting access, the Board might severely
limit the future of the Park.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the easement is permanent if it is accepted. Mr. St.
John said "yes." Mr. Bowerman asked if the easement could be changed. Mr. St.
John said "no," not without the County's concurrence. Mr. Bowerman asked how the
maintenance could be enforced in terms of if its accessibility and the conditions
of the road or parking lot. He also asked if the County would be put in a
position of having to enforce the conditions of the easement. Mr. St. John said
"yes," the County would be the only entity that would have standing to enforce
the easement. Mr. Bowerman asked if the property is sold, would the easement go
with the property. Mr. St. John said the easement runs with the land.
Mr. Marshall said he appreciates what the Rippers are trying to do, and he
thinks it would be excellent to have the trash cleaned up, and he can sympathize
with them. He thinks the representative from the Park will testify that this is
a common problem all around the Park and on roads accessing the Park. He
understands the Rippers problems, but leans toward denying the request primarily
because if the right is taken away there would be no way to get it back.
Mr. Perkins said a future Board can abandon this road in 10 or 20 years,
but if it is done tonight, then it will severely limit what could happen in the
future. He feels the problems the Rippers have are law enforcement problems, and
it is up to this Board to see that those problems are corrected. He feels the
Board could go to the Park Service and discuss ways to maintain the road and to
provide parking.
Mr. Bowerman said he agrees with Mr. Perkins. He thinks that this road
should remain public. The problems described by Mr. Ripper are the same
throughout the County. He thinks these are enforcement problems. He does not
think the Board can abandon state roads all over the County to deal with this
issue. He will not support the petition. The road belongs to the public and
should remain with the public.
Mrs. Humphris said she agrees with Mr. Bowerman. This has been a difficult
decision. She thinks the Board should not abandon this road, but it seems that
as a result of this meeting, there are persons interested in doing something to
October 14, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 427 Pg. 287
Page 13
help the situation. The cleaner the area is kept, the less trashing will be
done, and the more people who are hiking, the less opportunity there is for
degradation of the area. She feels that working together comparatively is the
best solution.
Mr. Martin said he heard from the people who use this trail on a regular
basis that it was a good idea to leave their cars at the bottom of the hill and
continue on foot. The hikers said it was safer and more enjoyable.
Mr. Perkins said this property was owned by Mr. Lee Middleditch for a
number of years. He rented it to some other people. They, in turn, sold hunting
permits on this property. This probably happened for 20 or 25 years. As many
as 50 to 75 hunting permits were sold per year. He has been all over this
property, perusing timber and bought a hunting permit. All of a sudden this use
is being denied. People are resentful of this and it will take a while to work
it out. He feels that is part of the problem.
Mr. Perkins then made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to deny the
request to abandon all public rights on two segments of Brown's Gap Road (Route
629).
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINED: Mr. Bain.
(Mr. Bain returned to the meeting at 10:16 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-92-47. Margaret B. Martin. Public Hearing on a
request to allow an existing single-wide mobile home to remain on 2.0 acs zoned
RA. Property on N side of Old Free Union Road (Rt 653) approx 0.2 mi E of inters
of Free Union Road (Rt 601). TM29,P45A. White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on September 29 and October 6, 1992.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's
office and a part of the permanent record of the Board. The applicant seeks this
permit in order to allow the mobile home to remain and allow rental of the mobile
home.
Should the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors choose to
approve this request, staff offers the following list of conditions:
"1. Compliance with VA-92-26:
a. Health Department approval for adequacy of the existing
septic field;
b. Screening approved by the Zoning Administrator shall be
installed the length of the trailer, within six months
of this approval."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 22,
1992, unanimously recommended approval of this request subject to the following
conditions:
Compliance with VA-92-26:
a. Health Department approval for adequacy of the existing
septic field;
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Kevin Cox, speaking for Mrs. Martin, said Mrs. Martin and her son are
here if there are any questions. There were no questions.
There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
Mrs. Humphris made mo%ion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve SP-92-47
subject to the condition recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
(The condition of approval is set out below:)
1. Compliance with VA-92-26:
a. Health Department approval for adequacy of the
existing septic field.
October 14, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B.42, Pg.288
Page 14
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-92-51. Allen & Edna Dunbar. Public Hearing on a
request for an additional development right on 6.151 ac zoned RA. Property on
private road 0.4 mi W of Old Lynchburg Road (Rt 631) & approx 1.1 mi S of
intersection with Dudley Mountain Road (Rt 706). TM89,P52. Samuel Miller
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 29 and October 6,
1992.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's
office and a part of the permanent record of the Board. The applicants are
proposing to construct a new dwelling for their daughter and to divide the
property to create two separate parcels. This division would qualify as a family
division.
This property is wooded and gently sloping. There is one dwelling
currently on the site. Adjacent properties are also wooded. This site is at the
end of a private road which serves six houses which are on lots created as a
family division.
Staff opinion is that .approval of the additional lots would have minimal
effect on the integrity of the four purposes of the Rural Areas as described by
the Comprehensive Plan. This request meets some, 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 unique factors 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.).
The Board's recent decision on SP-92-46 James E. Clark did give importance to
consideration of additional development rights for family.
The property is located away from existing development or growth areas, but
is not in a agricultural/forestal area. Based on this fact and the Boardfs most
recent findings and action regarding additional lots for family members, staff
would recommend approval of this request.
Should the Board of Supervisors choose to approve this request, staff
offers the following condition:
"1. Staff approval of subdivision plats."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission at its meeting on September 22,
1992, by a vote of three to two, recommended approval of this request subject to
the following condition:
1. Staff approval of subdivision plats.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Cilimberg the difference between this request and
the previous special permit request from James Clark. Mr. Cilimberg said this
property is not in an agricultural/forestal district. The land has been family
owned for a long time. The five lots were created under a family division in
1987.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the family member is a grandchild. Mr. Cilimberg
said the family member is the daughter of the owner. Mr. Bowerman asked if the
member is a grandchild of the original owner and if there are other
grandchildren. Mr. Cilimberg said "yes," he believes so. Mr. Bowerman asked if
staff's position would be the same if four other children came forward° Mr.
Cilimberg said he feels this would have to be looked at similarly as long as the
land could carry the additional use.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Kevin Cox, representing the Mr. and Mrs. Dunbar, said the Dunbars want
to provide affordable housing for their family. If the family had the wealth to
own more land, and if this parcel had been 42 acres, this process would be
unnecessary. This qualifies as a family division, but the purpose of the
Comprehensive Plan is to provide for good long-term planning for the entire
County and the Zoning Ordinance is the embodiment of that. It seems to him that
a house will have the same impact regardless of who lives in it. Whomever lives
in the house will have the same impact on capital improvement and agricultural
land. The Zoning Ordinance provides for this type of subdivision and this
particular case meets all of the qualifications. He sees no reason to deny the
Dunbars this fair, good use of their land. Mr. Dunbar is present to answer any
questions.
Mr. David Van Roijen, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council
(PEC), read a statement outlining two primary concerns regarding allowing this
additional development right. PEC has reviewed the staff report pertaining to
this request and it appears that there is little, if any, reasonable agricultural
or timbering use available on the Dunbar parcel. However, PEC believes that
current zoning allows the Dunbars a reasonable use of their land and that there
is no legal or compelling reason for the Board to grant this special use permit.
If the Board determines that the Dunbars' request is surrounded by rare
circumstances to justify the allowance of an additional lot, PEC urges the Board
to clearly state the nature of those circumstances in granting approval of this
request, so that the expectations of the thousands of rural area landowners will
not be raised that obtaining additional development rights from this Board is an
October 14, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 427 Pg. 289
Page 15
easy thing. PEC urges the Board to avoid establishing such a dangerous precedent
if it chooses to approve this request, and to take as much care in the wording
of its approval.
Mr. Van Roijen said, secondly, Old Lynchburg Road is a very dangerous road
with many blind spots concealed by numerous hills, curves and considerable
vegetation. The private road, which will provide access to this additional lot,
has insufficient sight distance. PEC recognizes that if the Board approves this
request the subdivision plat which creates the lot may be exempt from County
sight distance requirements because of the "family division" regulations. PEC
also recognizes that the combination of the "by-right" development lots already
used by the Dunbars and the "family division" provisions pertaining to the plats
creating those lots have already established an entrance on Old Lynchburg Road
without adequate sight distance. This entrance serves the six lots already
divided by the Dunbars, and if their present request is approved, it will allow
a seventh family to exit and enter Old Lynchburg Road at this point. The Board
needs to consider the public safety.
Mr. Van Roijen said personally, when he first heard about this request, he
went to look at the site and travelled the road several times. He thinks that
the ordinances allowing five additional lots are generous. Public safety is an
.ssue. The Highway Department says the average household has seven car trips per
day. There are seven houses on this private road, which computes to 49 trips per
day. It seems that there are adequate reasons to deny this request. Approving
this request would aggravate a condition that is already bad. This is a narrow
road that is windy, curvy and intolerable.
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. St. John what constitutes a family member in a family
division like this. Mr. St. John said a lineal descendant. Mr. Perkins asked
if access can be denied to a persons property from a public road. Mr. St. John
said "no."
Mr. Allen Dunbar, the applicant, said he does not know what Mr. Van Roijen
is speaking of because his daughter currently lives in his home. Mr. Dunbar said
he leaves in the morning to go to work and comes home late at night. His father
is disabled and hardly ever goes anywhere, his mother does not drive, his brother
is laid off from work and no one else resides on the property.
Mr. Marshall asked Mr. Dunbar how long his father has owned the land. Mr.
said the land was purchased in the early 1970's. Mr. Dunbar said all he
is trying to do is give his daughter a place to live. He has 6.51 acres and is
not doing anything with it. If he is unable to use it, he will sell it.
There being no one else from the public to speak, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Marshall said he feels sympathy for Mr. Dunbar and other people like
him in the County. He sees no reason why the Board cannot grant this request.
He feels the Board has to be compassionate and concerned about individual rights.
If someone could show him why this request was going to be detrimental, then he
would reconsider his position. Mr. Bowerman asked what if, by doing this, the
Board over the course of the next 10 years created 1000 new lots that otherwise
would not be allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. He asked what happens to the next
person who comes to the Board with a similar situation and compelling reasons.
Mr. Marshall said there are more people around every day. Times are different
now than when the Ordinance was adopted in 1980. He realizes the more people
that move into the County, the more restrictions there have to beo Mr. Bowerman
said he is suggesting that there has to be a limit.
Mr. Martin said he, basically, agrees with Mr. Marshall. The people who
were on the Board in 1980 knew that the Board would not always think the same.
Special permits allow for exceptions. He thinks that Mr. Dunbar is trying to
provide his daughter a home on 6.51 acres of his land. He feels this is a
compelling reason. Mr. Perkins said he agrees.
Mr. Bain said he stated his feeling in August when the request for James
Clark was before the Board. He hears the compelling reason, but he does not see
a distinction from someone else who comes in with a request. He is not prepared
to encourage this type of action, unless this Board is willing to review the
Zoning Ordinance in a comprehensive fashion. He does not agree that action such
as this should be taken in a piece-meal fashion.
Mr. Marshall said he would rather do this on a one-on-one basis than long-
term. Mr. Martin said this is a unique situation. On an individual case like
this, it is clearly not someone developing property to make a profit.
Mr. Bowerman said this is not a decision that affects one parcel. If this
is approved and there is a similar circumstance next week, or next year, the
Board will be compelled to approve the request.
Mr. Martin said he has no problems voting the same way in a similar
situation. He feels that when the Zoning ordinance was adopted, someone, was not
paying enough attention to the need for housing and jobs in this area. He is on
the Board now and is paying attention to those things. If this Board reviews the
Zoning Ordinance again, and changes are made, he would advocate taking a closer
October 14, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 16
look at housing and jobs. He does not think those
consideration when the ordinance was adopted.
M.B. 42, Pg. 290
issues were a big
Mrs. Humphris said when the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan were
adopted, no consideration was given to the carrying capacity of the County. This
is something that will have to be studied and determined· There is not an
unlimited supply of surface water for the urban dwellers to use or ground water
for wells. There is not an unlimited supply of a lot of County resources.
y, roads cannot continue to be built if clean air is going to be
maintained. There are a lot of things that were not anticipated. Carrying
capacity is one of the major concerns. She has not gotten involved in this
discussion because this Board knows where she stands. She stands the same as she
did on the Clark decision. She feels that instead of drip-by-drip, this Board
should have order in what it does. A lot of study and much public input resulted
in the Ordinance that is in place today. If an exception is going to be granted,
it must be an unusual circumstance. This circumstance is unfortunate but not
unusual. This Board needs to stick to planning and going through the public
process. If a change is going to be made, it should be done through the process
with public input.
Mr. Marshall said if this Board denies this petition, it is sending a
message to people like Mr. Dunbar, in his economic condition, that they are not
wanted in the County. Mrs. Humphris disagreed. Mr. Perkins said he thought by
having a public hearing, the public was involved. Everyone had a chance to come
tonight and one person came and spoke against this request·
Mrs. Humphris asked what the unusual circumstance is that will distinguish
this from another hardship. Mro Perkins said he does not think it is unusual,
but staff has said that there are no critical resources involved, it is not a
suitable agricultural/forestal area and there is nothing else that the property
can be used for except a house.
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve SP-92-51 with
the condition recommended by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. St. John if the Board could impose conditions to
make the special permit conform to the Zoning Ordinance, i.e. sight distance.
Mr. St. John said ',no," the Board would be using the special permit process to
impose an otherwise unlawful condition.
Mr. Bain asked if this Board could include in the approval, as a
distinguishing factor, the size of the property so it can be singled out. Mr.
· John said he has two problems with that. If the Board says it will deny the
next person who may have six and one-half acres on the grounds that the previous
special use permit had six acres it would appear that this is being done
lly. The Zoning Ordinance sets out a list of findings that the Board
st make. Those findings are what the staff addresses. Mr. Bain asked if
special permit comes forward with similar findings, in terms of pros and
this Board would have to approve it. Mr. St. John said he thinks so. The
Ordinance presupposes that there will be cases where a finding on a
use permit will be appropriate. Mr. Bain said although this is a
islative decision, if it is granted and if another similar request comes
· the Board would have to defend its action if it denied the request. Mr.
John said if the cases are similar and indistinguishable, this Board would
to take the same action, unless, there was an issue which could be related
safety or profit. There is nothing in the Ordinance which states the special
be granted. The Ordinance does presuppose that there will be
where it is appropriate to grant special permits° The criteria to look
are the findings. If the majority of the Board is dissatisfied with this
as opening the door for too many development rights, the answer is to
the Ordinance and make it more restrictive.
Mr. Bowerman said in the future, if a situation like Mr. Dunbar's comes
and an application is made with similar facts, i.e., family division and
Gar descendant, one factor to be considered is this situation predated
of the Zoning Ordinance. He looks at this issue and the importance that
Bain, Mrs. Humphris and he have put into the question of interpreting the
Plan, in such a way as to create additional lots as being a
~ignificant issue. This is not a developer or someone who just bought a piece
property and wants to do something with it. He will support the request,
~ecognizing that he may create 500 or 1000 more lots in the future if the facts
similar. He does not think this is a substantial detriment to the purpose
intent of the Plan, or the citizens of the County when it is interpreted on
basis.
Mr. Bain said he feels if this request goes forward this Board needs to
.ook at the entire Ordinance in terms of development plans. In addition, if the
continues to do this, whether it is for an individual or a developer, if
:he property was owned before 1980, the Board will not be able to say "no" and
its decision in a court of law. If this is the decision being made then
:his Board has to make it. Mr. Bain said he feels the Ordinance needs to be
looked at as a whole because that is the only way it can be done and be
~uccessful in court. Mr. Bowerman said he does not see that this one request and
few more will prevent the Board from looking at or changing the Ordinance. He
not think the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan, Zoning Ordinance and
October 14, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) ~4.B. 427 Pg. 29!
Page 17
everything else this Board has done, contemplated putting people at a
disadvantage like this. Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin agreed.
Mr. Bain said in the past he has raised the issue of utilities and what
will be done with that expense. Mr. Martin said he Understands the objections
that Mr. Bain and Mrs. Humphris have and realizes that this could increase
the number of lots, but he feels strongly that as long as there is a special use
permit process, this is the kind of case that it needs to be applied to. He
shares some of their concerns.
There being no further discussion, the roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bowerman.
NAYS: Mr. Bain and Mrs. Humphris.
(The condition of approval is set out in full below:)
1~ Staff approval~of subdivision plats.
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing to delete the "no rental" condition on
mobile home permits. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 29 and
October 6, 1992.)
Mr. St. John said this request was by Resolution of Intent of this
Board to eliminate the "no rental" provision on mobile homes. This amendment
would eliminate the conditions prohibiting rental of mobile homes, limiting
occupancy to the applicant or applicant's immediate family, prohibiting transfer
of the special use permit and conditions limiting special use permits to five
years duration.
Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Kevin Cox said he feels the "no rental" provision is totally
unnecessary. Some of the mobile homes that currently have the condition on them
are being rented anyway and the Zoning Administrator is unable to find out about
this. There is one thing he would like to focus on. He hears a lot of
discussion about quality of life. There was a letter delivered to the Planning
Commission during its discussion of the zoning text amendment which will be
coming before this Board on November 11, 1992, regarding single-wide mobile homes
as a by-right use. The letter stated that allowing single-wide mobile homes as
a by-right use would effect the quality of life, which is a popular cliche, in
Albemarle County. He does not see how having a home which is built in a factory
on a steel chassis and delivered to a site near someone can affect anyone's
quality of life. It does not affect anyones quality of life unless some kind of
prejudgment is made concerning the desirability or nature of the occupance of
that type of unit. A lot of the discussion on mobile homes is really about the
people and judgements concerning the people who live in those units. Doing away
with the conditions that are put on mobile home permits will not make any
difference in terms of numbers. He said he hopes the Board will adopt the
resolution.
Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator, said Mr. Cox was correct when
he said she was unable to identify people renting mobile homes and enforcement
would be just as difficult. She said the issue comes up from time to time when
people own the property and are interested in renting it, or when someone is
interested in purchasing the property, or when coming across a file and there is
a condition on there that the permit was valid for only five years. It would be
of benefit to both the Zoning Department and the public to have this clarified.
There being no one else ~from the public to speak, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following
resolution to delete the "no rental" condition on mobile home permits.
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that all previously issued special use permits for
mobile homes in the Rural Areas (RA) zoning district of Albemarle
County, Virginia, which include conditions prohibiting rental of
those mobile homes, limiting their occupancy to the applicant or the
applicant's immediate family, prohibiting transfer of the special
use permit or limiting the special use permit to five (5) years
duration, are hereby amended to eliminate the above conditions.
Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing on an Ordinance to amend Article IX,
Section 2-52 of the County Code to increase the number of bond issuances from
thirteen to fourteen for the Industrial Development Authority. (Advertised in
october 14, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 292
Page 18
the Daily Progress on September 29 and October 6, 1992.) (Mr. Bowerman left the
room at 11:24 p.m.)
Mr. Huff said the Industrial Development Authority recommended approval for
the issuance of, up to $22 million, industrial revenue bonds for the University
of Virginia Health Services Foundations. In order to consider the request,
Section 2-52 of the Code of Albemarle must be amended to expand the number of
outstanding issues from 13 to 14. Staff recommends approval of the amendment.
(Mr. Bowerman returned to the room at 11:26 p.m.)
The chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Steve Blaine, representing UVa Health Services Foundation, said the
Foundation was created to support and assist the UVa Health Sciences Center, and
it is through the Foundation that the medical faculty at UVa may participate and
conduct practice clinics. With the need for additional clinical space, the
intent is to convert about 35,000 square feet at the North Ridge building. The
benefits to the County, in addition to additional jobs during construction
period, is better access to medical facilities for County residents. The
Internal Revenue Code also requires Board approval of the issuance.
Mr. David Van Roijen asked if these bonds are then being used to purchase
a building that will then be removed from the tax roles. Mr. Blaine said it is
correct that the Health Services Foundation is a tax exempt entity. There are
no public funds going into the project. Health Services has agreed to make
payments in lieu of taxes to alleviate that situation. Mr. Bowerman asked if
Health Services' Fontaine Avenue property will be taxable. Mr. Blaine said
"yes," North Ridge would be removed from the tax rolls because that is where the
clinics will be and payments, in lieu of taxes, will be made on the Fontaine
Avenue property.
There being no further comment from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Huff said as a third issue, if the Board approves this request, it also
needs to authorize the County Attorney to draft an agreement on the tax status
of the Fontaine Avenue property.
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt an ordinance
amending Article IX, Section 2-52 of the County Code to increase the number of
bond issuances from thirteen to fourteen for the Industrial Development
Authority. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
AN ORDINANCE
TO AMEND AND REENACT
ARTICLE IX, CHAPTER 2
OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE
"INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY"
BY REPEALING SECTION 2-52
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that Section 2-52 of Article IX, Chapter 2, of the
Code of Albemarle, entitled "Limitation on Number of Bond Issues" is
hereby repealed.
Agenda Item No. 12.
Resolution.
Approve UVA Health Services Foundation Bond Issue
Mr. Huff said the Internal Revenue Code requires that the Board approve any
issuance of industrial revenue bonds within Albemarle County. The University of
Virginia Health Services Foundation has applied for financing for five specific
projects. The Industrial Development Authority recommended that the Board
approve the issuance and the Board is now requested to approve or disapprove the
issuance of the bonds.
The Health Services Foundation recognizes that its ownership of these
properties, being financed, will remove the properties from the tax rolls of the
County due to the tax exempt status of the Foundation. The Foundation also
recognizes that it utilizes services provided by the County and will be making
an offer to enter into an agreement to pay taxes on some portion of these
properties. This proposal will be delivered under separate cover as soon as it
is received.
Mr. Huff said if the Board is supportive of the financing, staff recommends
that the resolution be adopted and instruct the County Attorney to draft a formal
agreement with Health Services Foundation per the proposal presented
incorporating any changes the Board feels are appropriate.
October 14, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 417 Pg. 193
Page 19
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following
UVa Health Services Foundation bond issue resolution (as set out in full below).
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of the Albemarle
County, Virginia ("Authority") has considered the application of The
University of Virginia Health Services Foundation ("Foundation")
requesting the issuance of the Authority's revenue bonds in an
amount not to exceed $22,000,000 ("Bonds") to be applied by the
Foundation for one or more of the following purposes (collectively,
"Projects"): (i) to finance the acquisition of an approximately
57,000 square foot building located at 2955 Ivy Road in Albemarle
County, Virginia known as the Northridge Office Building, currently
housing the Foundation's administrative unit and four clinics; (ii)
to finance the renovation of the Northridge Office Building to
convert approximately 35,000 square feet of office space to clinical
use for an additional four to six clinics; (iii) to finance the
acquisition, construction and equipping of an approximately 60,000
square foot administrative office building to be located on
approximately 5 acres of land within the University Research Park
located at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of U.S. Route
29/250 Bypass and Fontaine Avenue, approximately 900 feet southwest
from the entrance of the University Research Park at Fontaine
Avenue; (iv) to finance the acquisition and installation of new
computer and other equipment at both the Northridge Office Building
and at the new administrative office building described in (iii)
above; and (v) to fund certain reserve funds, capitalized interest
accounts and certain costs of issuance relating to the proposed
issuance of bonds, and has held a public hearing thereon on October
12, 1992;
WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
as amended (the "Code"), provides that the governmental unit having
jurisdiction over the issuer of private activity bonds and over the
area in which an~ facility financed with the proceeds of private
activity bonds is located must approve the issuance of the bonds;
WHEREAS, the Authority issue its bonds on behalf of the County
of Albemarle, Virginia ("County"); the Projects are located in
Albemarle County, Virginia ("County"); and the Board of Supervisors
of the County ("Board") constitutes the highest elected governmental
unit of the County;
WHEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board approve
the issuance of the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the
issuance of the Bonds, subject to the terms to be agreed upon, a
certificate of the public hearing and a Fiscal Impact Statement have
been filed with the Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the
Authority for the benefit of the Foundation, as required by Section
147(f) of the Code and Section 15.1-1378.1 of the Code of Virginia
of 1950, as amended ("Virginia Code") to permit the Authority to
assist in the financing of the Project.
2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not
constitute an endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the Bonds of
the creditworthiness of the Projects or the Foundation andr as
required by Section 15.1-1380 of the Virginia Code, the Bonds shall
.provide that neither the County nor the Authority shall be obligated
to pay the Bonds or the interest thereon or other costs incident
thereto except from the revenues and monies pledged therefor and
neither the faith or credit nor the taxing power of the
Commonwealth, the County nor the Authority shall be pledged thereto.
3. Pursuant to the limitations contained in Temporary
Income Tax Regulations Section 5f.lO3-2(f)(1), this resolution shall
remain in effect for a period of one year from the date of its
adoption.
4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
October 14, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) 5/.B. Pg. 294
Page 20
Mr. Bain made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to authorize the County
Attorney to draft an agreement providing that Health Services Foundation will pay
the County $0.70/$100 value on its' new office building to be constructed on
Fontaine Avenue. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 18. Cancel October 21, 1992, Board meeting.
Mr. Bain made mo%ion, seconded by Mrs° Humphris, to cancel the Board
meeting of October 21, 1992. Roll was called and motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Discussion: Millington Bridge (Route 671), draft
letter to Ray Pethtel.
Due to the lateness of the hour, the Board agreed to discuss this item at
its November 4, 1992 meeting.
Agenda Item No. 15. Appropriation: FY 1991-92 School Fund Carry-Over
Balance.
Due to the lateness of the hour, the Board agreed to discuss this item at
its November 4, 1992 meeting.
Agenda Item No. 16. Appoint Representative to Vote at VACo Annual Business
Meeting.
Due to the lateness of the hour, the Board agreed to discuss this item at
its November 4, 1992 meeting.
Agenda Item No. 17. Discussion: Amendments to VACo By-Laws.
Due to the lateness of the hour, the Board agreed to discuss this item at
its November 4, 1992 meeting.
Agenda Item No. 14. Discussion: Appointment to Shenandoah National Park
Advisory Committee (deferred from October 7).
Mr. Huff said at the October 7 meeting, the Board requested information
from the other seven participating counties on their selection of representatives
for the Shenandoah National Park Advisory Committee. Staff contacted the
counties for the following information:
Warren County has decided not to participate at this time, but wants to
maintain the option to join the committee in the future. Their Board
feels that the County has a good relationship with the National Park and
that there is already an open communication channel between the Park and
the County.
Rappahannock County has appointed three of their Board members to
participate on the Committee.
Greene Count~ has appointed one community person who has been very
involved in park issues over the years to attend the first meeting and
report back to the Board. At this time, the Board has not decided if they
will appoint any additional representatives.
Madison County will act on Delegate Allen's letter at their Board meeting
on October 13. Madison County staff assumes that the Board will appoint
Board members and possibly one community representative, since Park issues
are such a concern in their County.
Auqusta County will not act on the committee appointments until next
Tuesday. Staff will provide that information at the Board meeting.
Rockinqham County has appointed the Board member and the Planning
Commission member whose district is adjacent to the Park and one property
owner who has been concerned with the Park issue.
Paqe County will act on the committee appointments next Tuesday. Staff
will provide that information at the Board meeting.
M.B. 42, Pg. 295
October 14, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 21
Mr. Huff said staff recommends that the Board appoint two Board members and
one additional member which could be from staff, Planning Commission or
citizenry.
Mr. Bain made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to appoint Mr. Marshall,
Mr. Perkins and Mr. Cilimberg to the Shenandoah National Park Advisory Committee.
Roll was called by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 19. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Mr. Bain requested a staff report on the implications of the memo he
distributed to the Board (copy on file) regarding County permitting procedures,
at the November 4, 1992 Board meeting°
Mrs. Humphris informed the Board of a canoe trip on Ivy Creek planned for
Sunday, October 18, 1992 for the purpose of looking to see what everyone is
talking about regarding the build-up of sediment in the Reservoir. The
participants are to meet at 1:00 p.m. at the treatment plant at the end of SPCA
Road.
Agenda Item NOo 20. Adjourn.
At 11:38 p.m. Mr. Bain made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adjourn to
October 15, 1992 at 7:00 p.m., in the Auditorium. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.