1992-06-17June 17, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
M.B. 41, Pg. 255
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on June 17, 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. Char-
lotte Y. Humphris, Messrs. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Charles S. Martin and Mr.
Walter F. Perkins.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County
Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 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. There were none.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs.
Humphris, seconded b~ Mr. Bain, to approve Items 5.1 and 5.2, and to accept
the remaining items on t,he consent agenda as information. There was no
further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin.
None.
Item 5.1. Authorize County Executive to sign United Way Administrative
Support Agreement. The following memorandum was received from staff:
"As you may remember, during the FY 92-93 budget work sessions,
there were discussions underway between United Way and the Albe-
marle County Department of Social Services to determine if the
United Way Child Care Scholarship Program could qualify as a
conduit for matching federal child care monies in order to provide
additional child care subsidies for Albemarle County families.
Since that time, Albemarle County has worked, not only with the
State Department of Social Services and United Way, but also with
the City of Charlottesville, to develop an administrative support
agreement that leverages 100 percent matching dollars with County,
City and United Way funds.
The major points of the administrative agreement are as follows:
The County's ~llocation to United Way for FY '93 is $23,450, the
City's allocation ($65,105) and United Way's own funds ($41,412)
are pooled together to create a total fund of $129,967. This will
be matched by $129,967 in Federal dollars (already approved by the
State Department of Social Services) for a total of $259,934 for
fee-based child-care.
For administrative expenses, United Way is allowed up to 13
percent ($33,791) to cover additional staff and computerization;
Albemarle County Department of Social Service is allocated a two
percent ($5,199) administrative fee.
The United Way Child Care Scholarship Program will administer the
program and distribute the funds to County and City families.
Local matching funds allocated for scholarships by the City and
County will be used for their respective families prior to using
United Way funds. The United Way funds will be allocated to City
and County residents based on need, with the goal of maintaining
United Way's historical allocation of 50 percent to 50 percent.
As fiscal agent, Albemarle County agrees to appropriate the total
required Federal match of $129,907 in order to reimburse United
Way for expenses. If approved, an appropriation request will come
before the Board in July. United Way will submit written reports
and invoices monthly to the Albemarle County Department of Social
Services, based on a standard computerized format agreed to by all
parties.
Child day care services will be provided to income eligible
families at 60 percent of median income on a sliding fee scale
basis. Families must be employed at least 30 hours per week and
must contribute toward the cost of day care. Oversight and
evaluation will be performed monthly by the United Way Child Care
Scholarship Committee Board and yearly by the County's Program
Review Committee and the City's Social Development Commission.
June 17, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
M.B. 41, Pg. 256
The actual agreement, which is quite lengthy, has been developed
and agreed upon by County staff from the Department of Social
Services, County Executive's Office, and the Department of Fi-
nance, as well as the City Manager's Office and the City Depart-
ment of Social Services. It is available for your review in its
entirety in the County Executive's Office, if so desired."
Mr. Bain mentioned that the City of Charlottesville has more funds
allocated to United Way than the County, but it appears, after viewing the
agreement, that it is a fifty-fifty allocation by the County and the City. He
wondered if the document is clearer in regard to the allocations. Mr. Tucker
explained that the allocations are based on the needs of the County and City,
in terms of scholarships. He said United Way representatives requested twice
the amount of funding, but the staff recommended this Board fund only half of
the requested amount, in order to apply for a federal grant, which will bring
the County up to the full amount of the United Way request.
Mrs. Humphris referred to the two percent administrative fee of $5,199,
which is proposed tQ be allocated to the County Department of Social Services,
and relates to administrative expenses for additional staff and computeriza-
tion. She asked if this will cover the cosus. Mr. Tucker replied, "yes." He
stated that the bulk of the money will go to United Way because United Way
officials will be administering the program. He said United Way representa-
tives have been able to purchase some computer equipment and software equip-
ment similar to equipment located in the County's Social Services Department.
He added that this equipment will be used for tracking all of the funding that
will be coming from the three entities and the federal government, as well as
the various children who will be using the scholarships. He noted that
Albemarle County will get a two percent administrative fee because the County
is the fiscal agent for the program.
Mr. Bain asked if the total amount will come from the City, County and
United Way. Mr. Tucker answered, "yes." Mr. Bain noted that 50 percent of
the total amount of money will come from federal funds, and he wondered if the
need is basically the same throughout the City and County. Mr. Tucker replied
that the need is greater in the City. He emphasized that this is why the
City's funding is more than the County's. Mr. Bain then wondered if more
money will be allocated for those needs in the City. Mr. Tucker responded,
"yes." He stated that the County will be fully funding the needs of the
County, with this grant, and these needs have been determined by the child
care representatives of the United Way.
By the vote recorded above the County Executive was authorized to sign
the Administrative support Agreement (on file in the Clerk's Office).
Item 5.2. Berkmar Drive Extension - Option to Purchase Residue Parcel.
The following Executive Summary was received from the staff:
"BACKGROUND: On May 6, 1992 you ratified an Option Agreement
signed by the County Engineer for 20,675.99 square feet of land
designated as "Residue A" on the attached plat (on file). The
decision to exercise the option was deferred pending the bid
opening and identification of funding. The option must be exer-
cased by June 28, 1992.
DISCUSSION: The Berkmar Road extension bids were opened on June
6, 1992. The $15,000 purchase price can be funded within the
original CIP budget.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the County Attorney to exercise the
Option Agreement to purchase "Residue A" using funds designated
within this budget."
The Board authorized the County Attorney to exercise the following
Option Agreement to purchase 20,675.99 square feet of land designated as
"Residue A" on the attached plat using funds designated in the Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) by the recorded vote shown above:
THIS DEED, taxed pursuant to Virginia Code Section 58.1-
811.A.3, made this 13th day of July, 1992, by and between PRESTON
0. STALLINGS, unremarried widower, Grantor, and the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Grantee, and O,NEILL REALTY AND MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, Noteholder, and ORBIN F. CARTER, TRUSTEE, additional
Grantors;
WI TNE S SETH :
For and in consideration of FIFTEEN THOUSAi~-D AND NO/100
DOLLARS ($15,000.00) cash in hand paid, the receipt of which is
hereby acknowledged, the Granuor does hereby GRANT, BARGAIN, SELL
and CONVEY, with GENERAL WARRANTY AND ENGLISH COVENANTS OF TITLE,
unto the Grantee, County of Albemarle, Virginia, in fee simple,
the following described real property, to-wit:
All that certain lot or parcel of land containing 20,675.99
square feet, and shown as Residue "A" on plat of Thomas B. Lin-
June 17, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
M.B. 41, Pg. 257
coln, Land Surveyor, Inc., d&t~d January 3, 1992, revised February
22, 1993, entitled "Plat showing Right-Of-Way Hereby Dedicated For
Public Use Also showing A Drainage Easement Hereby Dedicated To
Public Use A Portion of the Property Belonging to Preston O.
Stallings As Recorded In Deed Book 710, Page 182 Located on
Berkmar Drive Extended", a copy of which is attached hereto.
Reference is made to this plat for a more particular description
of the land conveyed herein.
This parcel of land is a portion of the property conveyed to
the Grantor by deed of Greenfield Mobile Homes Park, Inc., a
Virginia corporation, dated February 3, 1981 and recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia,
in Deed Book 710, Page 182. Juanita P. Stallings died November 6,
1987, and title to said property then transferred to Preston O.
Stallings by operation of law.
This property is conveyed SUBJECT TO any and all applicable
easements, conditions, restrictions and reservations contained in
duly-recorded deeds, plats and other instruments constituting
constructive notice in the chain of title to the property herein
conveyed which have not expired by a limitation of time contained
therein or have not otherwise become ineffective.
The property hereby conveyed is subject to the lien of a
certain deed of trust from the Grantor to Harry N. Lewis and Orbin
F. Carter, Trustees, (either of whom may act), dated June 16,
1992, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk,s Office in Deed Book
1232, page 167, securing of record O,Neill Realty and Mortgage
Corporation in the original principal amount of $150,000.00.
Orbin F. Carter, Trustee, with the consent of O,Neill Realty
and Mortgage Corporation, as evidenced by its execution hereof,
releases unto the Grantee all of the right, title and interest of
the Trustee in and to the real property herein described only. It
is expressly understood by the Grantor, O,Neill Realty and Mort-
gage Corporation, and Orbin F. Carter, Trustee, that the obliga-
tions of Grantor pursuant to the twenty-six bonds dated June 16,
1992, secured ~y said deed of trust, shall remain in full force
and effect, and that Orbin F. Carter, Trustee, and O'Neill Realty
and Mortgage Corporation intended to release only the real proper-
ty described herein and no other real property is released.
The property is hereby accepted by the Grantee, pursuant to
a resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County on June 17, 1992, authorizing its chairman to act on behalf
of Albemarle County, Virginia.
WITNESS the following signatures and seals.
PRESTON O. STALLINGS (SIGNED)
O'NEILL REALTY AND MORTGAGE
CORPORATION
DONNA F. BINGLER, VICE
PRESIDENT (SIGNED)
ORBIN F. CARTER, TRUSTEE
(SIGNED)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
DAVID P. BOWERMAN, CHAIPdVLAN
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY (SIGNED)
Item 5.3. National Historic Landmark Designation for Shack Mountain.
The following Executive Summary was received:
"BACKGROUND: The National Park Service (NPS) is considering the
nomination of Shack Mountain as Natural Historic Landmark and is
soliciting comments by July 7th. The attached (on file) staff
report supports the nomination and recommends Board endorsement of
the nomination. The detailed Park Service report is available for
review in the Clerk's office.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Chairman to send a letter of
support for the nomination of Shack Mountain as a National Histor-
ic Landmark..,
June 17, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
M.B. 41, Pg. 258
The Board authorized the Chairman to send a letter of support for the
nomination of Shack Mountain as a National Historic Landmark, by the recorded
vote shown above.
Item 5.4. virginia Cooperative Extension Service - Reassmgnment of
Personnel, was received as information. (The Executive Summary states that as
part of the Extension Service's reorganization plan, the Albemarle County
Agricultural Agent is being split into a 50 percent position for Albemarle
County and 50 percent for Fluvanna County. due to this reassignment, the
County's share of the costs associated with his position will drop from one-
third to one-sixth.)
Item 5.5. Copy of the minutes of the Planning Commission for May 12,
1992, was received as information.
Item 5.6. Letter dated June 2, 1992, from Ray D. Pethtel, Commissioner,
Virginia Department of Transportation, stating that certain abandonments and
additions had been approved for Route 660 effective May 26, 1992, was received
as follows:
"As requested in your resolution dated May 6, 1992, the following
additions to and abandonments from the Secondary System of Albe-
marle County are hereby approved, effective May 26, 1992.
ADDITIONS:
Route 660 - Sections 3 and 4 of new location Route 660,
Project 0660-002-187,C501,C502
LENGTH
0.21 Mi
ABANDONMENTS:
Route 660 - Sections 1 and 2 of old location Route 660,
Project 0660-002-187,C501,C502.,
0.23 Mi
Item 5.7. Notice from the State Department of Taxation dated June 5,
1992, re: Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation v. State Corporation Commis-
smon, received for information.
Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing: An ordinance to be known as Chapter
16.01 of the Code of Albemarle entitled "Naming of Roads and Numbering of
Properties." It is intended that all roads within the County which serve or
are designed to serve three or more dwelling units or business structures,
including both public and private roads, shall be named and that all dwelling
units and business structures within the County shall be assigned property
numbers. The purpose of this ordinance is to help provide for efficient
delivery of emergency and other services and to provide for uniformity in road
naming and assignment of property numbers. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on June 2 and June 9, 1992.)
Mr. Tucker stated that he would briefly describe Chapter 16.01 of the
Code of Albemarle relating to the naming of roads and the numbering of
properties. He said the entire ordinance and attached manual is to support
the effective delivery of emergency services through the implementation of a
consistent processing of road naming, a standardizing of road signs, and
locating signs and displaymng property numbers which are visible to the
emergency service providers. He noted that some of the significant features
of the ordinance include the fact that all of the roads in the County with
three or more dwelling units or business properties have been named, including
private and public roads, and the road naming process has been defined in the
ordinance.
With regard to the road signs, themselves, Mr. Tucker explained that he
has brought an eight inch sign and a nine inch sign to the meeting. He stated
that the nine inch sign will be used on primary roads, and the eight inch sign
will be used for secondary roads. He said these signs will be placed at all
intersections on named roads. He noted that the white letters on the green,
reflectorized signs, have been previously approved, as well as the heights
which he just mentioned. He said this is required regardless of the County's
current signage, but custom designed signs would not have to be removed unless
they interfered with the new sign location. He stated that signs are required
on private roads under this particular ordinance, and he pointed out that the
initial signs and installation will be at the County's expense through the
County's surcharge for the Egll system. He added that replaoement of noncon-
forming signs will be at County expense, only when necessary due to damage
from deterioration, vandalism, etc. He went on to say that house numbering or
business numbering is required by this ordinance. He explained that the
numbers must be distinguishable from the road, and they must be located at the
main entrance door to the dwelling, or at the entrance to the property, as
long as the dwelling ms more than 100 feet from the road.
Mr. Tucker reminded Board members that he had mentioned the issue of
private roads several weeks ago when this public hearing was advertised. He
had indicated, at t~at time, the supervisors might want to consider some type
of waiver or some provismon in the ordinance which might allow those signs,
particularly private road signs, which already exist, to remain. He said the
June 17, 1992 (Regul'ar Night Meeting> N .B. 4], Pg. 259
(Page 5)
ordinance allows that, but the ordinance indicates that if that sign is
damaged, then the County can install another sign, if the property owners do
not do it. He said some localities have waived the idea of dealing with
signage on private roads, and have left it up to the property owners, as a
private matter, and have only located signs on the public roads. He noted
that there are a variety of ways signage is handled in different parts of the
country.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that the supervisors will need to address
changes in road names which may come after notification. He said the policy
this Board has adopted is reflected in the ordinance, as to how road names can
be changed. He added that the staff wants to consult some more with some of
the actual agencies and companies which have to make changes when a road name
change occurs. He stated that the staff may want to come back to this Board
in July with suggested alterations, although, he is unsure, at this time, if
there will be a recommended change. He noted that a change will not require a
public hearing advertisement.~ ~He said that it can be changed at a regular
meeting as a scheduled item. He then distributed one change in the manual,
which he said the staff feels might better cover how individuals will be asked
to address their properties and display the numbers. He explained that the
changed language indicates that individuals must post the address number at
the primary access entrance to the dwelling unit or residence. He emphasized
that if the structure is no more than 100 feet from the road, the entrance
door of the structure is clearly visible from the road, and there is no
suitable location at~ the primary access entrance, then the address number
shall be displayed on, above or at the side of the main entrance door mn a
manner that is clearly visible from the road. He said this language is an
alteration from the original wording of the regulation which puts the emphasis
on having the address on a mailbox, post, fence or other suitable location at
the road. He noted that the original language of the regulation would allow
for the number to be placed on the house, if there was no mailbox or other
opportunity to post that address at the road, and the house was visible and
within 100 feet of the road. He said this is the only change the staff is
recommending, and he pointed out that the change relates to Chapter Four of
the manual on Page 17.
Mr. Bowerman then called attention to Section 16.01-1 of the ordinance,
where on the first page, in the second line of the second paragraph of (c),
there is a reference to above criteria. He noted that further in the same
paragraph there is another reference to above criteria. He wondered to what
criteria is this section referring. Mr. Cilimberg responded that Mr. St. John
would have a definite answer, but Mr. Cilimberg believes that both references
relate to the criteria set forth in the section before that paragraph. Mr.
Bain stated that he thinks the references, to which Mr. Bowerman is referring,
are made to the first paragraph in Section 16.01-1 (c). Mr. Bowerman said
that he wanted to be sure of this because he had some difficulty understanding
the paragraph. Mr. Tucker agreed that the references are made to the first
paragraph in Section 16.01-1 (c), as it relates to intent.
Mr. Tucker next reminded the supervisors that they have received letters
tonight, as well as ~efore tonight, relating to the naming and numbering of
roads and properties.
Mr. Bain inquired if the size of the signs relates to VDoT regulations
or other communities' actions. He wondered if smaller signs could be used,
depending on the number of units on a private road, and then use the larger
signs on primary roads. Mr. Tucker responded that VDoT will accept smaller
signs. He believes the reason these signs were recommended was because staff
members, along with the Emergency Operations Center staff and others that
provide emergency service, tested these size signs in a particular location
and at a certain speed along a roadway, and felt this size sign was much
better and more visible. He stated that elderly drivers, as well as others,
were considered as far as the ability to see the sign without having to stop
in the middle of the road. He reiterated, though, that it is possible to use
smaller signs.
Mr. Bain asked if traffic counts are taken into consideration as part of
VDoT's standards as far as the sizes of signs are concerned. Mr. Tucker
replied that traffic counts are considered in some situations. He went on to
say that even on public roads the signs that VDoT installs are smaller than
the signs being recommended for these secondary roads.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that these are larger letters than have been
required by VDoT, but, according to a discussion between VDoT and the County's
Engineering Department, VDoT may be changing its standards. He suggested that
before it is decided to install smaller size signs, it should be confirmed
with the Engineering Department.
Mr. Martin cal'led attention to the cover letter accompanying the
ordinance relating to the numbering and naming of streets and roads, which
indicated that a waiver for existing road signs might be considered. He asked
how difficult this would be and when, during the road naming process, could
decisions be made which are different from the decisions made in the past.
Mr. Tucker answered that there are no requirements, at the present time, for
private roads, but, as development occurs, road signs will be installed. He
pointed out that with this ordinance signs would be required for all roads,
and the County would be responsible for installing the signs, at the tax-
payers' expense, through the Egll surcharge. He added that a waiver could be
June 17, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 260
(Page 6)
provided for private roads, which would not require any signs on the private
roads. He said with this waiver, the matter would be left up to the property
owner to install signs, if they choose to do so. He said there could even be
a provision that if the sign is damaged, the County would not be responsible
for replacing this sign. He noted that the way the Ordinance is now written,
does not provide for the County to replace all private road signs, if they
already exist. He stated that if the signs were damaged, however, the County
could replace the existing sign, but this would mean the signage along the
road would not be the same. He said many subdivisions take great care in
installing their own signs. He reiterated that there could be a provision in
the ordinance which would make it the responsibility of the subdivisions or
the homeowners' associations to replace their own signs.
Mr. Martin commented that this ordinance requires the County to install
signs on private roads with three or more dwellings. He noted that if there
was only one dwelling on a private road, no sign would be installed. Mr.
Tucker agreed that Hr. Martin's comments were correct.
Mr. Bain remarked that he believes if this ordinance is going to be
effective, waivers should not be given to private roads. He said this would
defeat the purpose of the E911 system. Mr. Tucker concurred. He said there
could be difficulty, from the emergency providers' perspective, in locating a
particular area. He noted that the whole purpose of the E911 ordinance is to
help emergency providers, and the purpose is not to force signs on properties
which did not have them.
Mr. Martin wondered if all private roads with more than three dwellings
currently have signs, even though the signs may be small. Mr. Cilimberg and
Mr. Tucker replied negatively.
Mr. Bain explained that some of these roads pre-existed the Zoning
Ordinance. He said there are no signs on a lot of private roads in the rural
area, and some of these roads have multiple houses located on them. Mr.
Tucker stated that the Road Naming Ordinance would require signage be provid-
ed, but there is no requirement already in place. He went on to say that
these private roads, or even some public roads, might have occurred prior to
the Zoning Ordinance and subdivision review where signs are required at the
time of approval, at the different intersections.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if there is a private road in the County with its
own sign, will the sign be changed, if the proposed ordinance is adopted.
Mr. Tucker replied, "no."
Mr. Bowerman then asked whether or not, if the sign is destroyed and the
owners of that private road elected to replace the sign, would the County
allow for the sign to be installed, just as it was in the beginning. Mr.
Tucker replied that the way the proposed ordinance is written, the sign would
be replaced with a new County sign. He said the reason for this is because
the new sign is reflectorized, so that it can be seen at night very easily.
He noted that a lot of the private road signs do not meet that standard. He
stated that, also, from a consistency standpoint, it would be good to have
similar signs throughout the County. He added that this Board may want to
allow existing signs to remain as they are.
Mr. Bowerman inquired, again, if this proposed ordinance allows private
road signs to remain. Mr. Tucker answered, "yes." He went on to say that if
the private road sign needs to be replaced, it would have to be replaced with
one of the new signs.
Mr. Bowerman nex~ inquired if existing public road signs would have to
be changed to the new signs. Mr. Tucker replied that, if the public road sign
has already been installed prior to this proposed ordinance, then it can stay.
He added, however, that if the public road sign is damaged, then it will be
replaced with a new County road sign.
Mr. Martin gave an example of a private road a quarter of a mile long
off of Route 20, with three dwellings on it. He asked if he would be correct
in believing there would be a sign installed there. Mr. Tucker responded that
Mr. Martin is correct.
Mr. Martin then wondered if a sign would be required if there was
another private road with an entrance off of Route 20, which had three or more
dwellings on it, and it already had a name. He wondered, too, if there was
another driveway a quarter of a mile long off of this private road with one
house on it, would this driveway be named.
Mr. Bowerman stated that there would be a street address on the private
road. Mr. Tucker concurred. He said the road would have a name because of
the street address, but a sign would not be installed at the entrance to the
road with only one house on it. Mr. Tucker stated that the particular sign
that was brought to this meeting was chosen because it is the larger sign.
Mr. Bowerman asked how long are the signs. Mr. Cilimberg replied that
the oversized signs are 48 inches, and the other signs are 46 inches.
Mr. Marshall inquired if each individual house on farms is going to be
numbered. Mr. Tucker responded that if there are three or more houses on a
June 17, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) ~4.B Pg. 26!
(Page 7) '
particular farm, each unit would have a number, and the road going into the
farm would have a name.
Mr. Bowerman commented that there has to be three occupied dwellings
located on a road for it to be named. Mr. Marshall asked if the numbers could
be seen from the highway. Mr. Tucker replied, "yes". Mr. Bain wondered if a
lot of the ordinance guidelines have come from guidance from VDOT. Mr. Tucker
answered that installation of the signs, etc., has to meet VDOT standards.
At this time, Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing on the proposed
ordinance for the naming of roads and numbering of properties.
Ms. Angelica Kilham, a resident of Route 20 North, indicated that she
had lived there for almost 40 years. She stated that this afternoon she
counted the number of signs on three-tenths of the road in front of her home,
and there are 14 signs. She said now there is the Rocky Hollow Road sign in
that area, and she thinks this is polluting the County with signs. She asked
the Board to consider smaller signs, and to allow the private owners to make a
choice as to whether or not they want a sign at their entrance.
Mr. Jim Ballheim stated that some of what he is going to say may not be
relevant, because he is hearing different things here than he heard when he
talked to the Planning staff. His understanding was that the signs were going
to go on every private road, if there was not an existing sign on it, even if
it was an entrance to a farm. He emphasized that he was told this by the
Planning Department and Mr. Brandenburger in the County Executive's office.
He went on to say that he wanted to register his opposition to this ordinance.
He thinks the public is not aware of this situation, as the signs relate to
farm entrances. He does not like the idea of having one of these County signs
on the entrance that goes to his barn and three houses that are on easements
off of the driveway to the barn. He pointed out that this driveway is on
Route 648, which is a small road. He reiterated that he does not think people
know this is going to happen. He said he got a letter at the beginning of May
which indicated he had to name his driveway. He added that even though he has
paid close attention to the Egll situation, he had no idea that a 48 inch sign
would be put on his barn driveway. He then noted that he drives Routes 22 and
231 back and forth to Charlottesville, which is a scenic byway, and he has not
envisioned a scenic byway as having four foot wide reflector signs at every
farm entrance. He does not think this is what the public envisioned, and he
does not think this will serve any purposel He believes emergency vehicles
could find a cottage that is beside his barn, as well as the residences that
are served off of the easement, just as quickly if there were four house
numbers on the mailbox, as they could find a place with the sign at the
entrance. He said if the Route number is 648 and the address of the house or
cottage is Number 7405, then that indicates where the residence is located.
He asked the Board to do something different rather than adopting the ordi-
nance as it is. He suggested the supervisors make it an option as far as
installing a sign at farm entrances. He pointed out that the sign at his farm
entrance would be the same as the sign at the beginning of Route 648. He
believes that having the same signs at farm entrances will route traffic onto
private property, and he thinks this is an expense that does not need to be
incurred by the County.
Mr. Martin asked Mr. Ballheim if he has four occupied dwellings on the
farm road. Mr. Ballheim replied, "yes." He said one dwelling is his own home
and the other three are at the end of an easement on his farm. He added that
this farm has been in that same place for a long time, and he emphasized that
he is not talking about a subdivision or a development. He is referring to
farms which may have cottages or farm offices and a main residence on them.
He reiterated that the staff had explained to him that these types of farms
would have one of these signs. He went on to say that it was also explained
to him that the request for bids had been sent out based upon this Board's
final approval, but that it can be withdrawn or amended. He believes that
VDoT's standards have been adopted totally voluntarily, because he does not
think VDoT has any standards that apply to County signs for private roads.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if Mr. Ballheim is opposed to signs for private
roads, with entrances off of public roads, as they relate to subdivisions. He
wondered, too, if Mr. Ballhelm is against having numbers for the houses in the
subdivisions. Mr. Ballheim replied that he does not put subdivisions in the
same category as farms. He said he does not intend to address how the problem
with subdivisions should be handled, but he does not think County signs should
identify farms. He does not believe the public has any idea what is going to
be put at the end of their driveways. Mr. Tucker stated he thinks that Mr.
Ballheim brings up a good example. He noted that not every farm entrance will
have a sign. In situations such as Mr. Ballheim's, however, there are several
units involved off of the farm road.
Mrs. Humphris pointed out that numbers would still be used for three or
more residences, even with situations such as Mr. Ballheim has described. Mr.
Tucker concurred.
Mr. St. John explained that if there are three houses which use a farm
road, but they have an easement to do that, then they are not a part of the
farm. He said the places may have originally been a part of the farm, but
now, they are separately owned residences. He added that these residences are
subdivisions, although they are not the usual subdivisions. He went on to say
June 17, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8) M.B. 41, Pg. 262
that if these areas were created today, they would be referred to as subdivi-
sions.
Mr. Tucker asked Mr. Ballheim if the residences, to which he referred,
are rental units. Mr. Ballheim answered, "no."
Mr. St. John stated that the houses in question are not a part of Mr.
Ballheim's farm. Mrs. Humphris commented that the definition in the ordinance
refers to dwelling units. She said it does not matter who owns the residenc-
es.
Mr. St. John said the problem being addressed relates primarily to
farms, which may have three or more dwellings on them as part of that farm.
He stated there could be a county sign that could show the name of the farm.
Mr. Ballheim stated that he was talking about his specific farm. He
believes, however, that farms which have three or more dwellings could be
identified just as well with house number signs out on the road.
Mr. Tucker asked if there are mailboxes located on the public road for
the residences to which Mr. Ballheim referred. Mr. Ballheim replied that
there are at least three mailboxes located on Route 648 for these specific
houses. He is unsure, however, if all four residences have mailboxes.
Mr. Marshall commented that if he had another house located on his farm
the County would place a sign at his farm entrance.
Ms. Hester Witcher stated that she lives on Route 680 in the White Hall
District. She speaks from the same point of view as the previous gentleman,
but she will take a different approach. She thinks that it is an invasion of
her privacy for the County to mandate a sign that is obscene in its size,
which invites people to come down the driveway and which she and the other
residenus pay to maintain. She believes thau people will look at her farm
entrance as a short cut to Lake Albemarle, and a lot of people will be coming
down her road. She said she will either have to put up another szgn indicat-
ing that it zs a dead-end or be filling the potholes created by fast moving
traffic. She noted that her driveway is a mile long, and people have lived on
this road long before the word, "subdivision," was ever created. She believes
that John Clayton, if he were alive, would verify this fact. She went on to
say that the cost appalls her. She estimates that it is going to cost between
$500 and $600 of her personal money to change her bank books and checks. She
noted that a bank book costs approximately $50, and she has five bank ac-
counts. She added that the advertising and contracts that exist for her farm
business all have her address printed on them, and she will have to reprint
every one of these items. She thinks the County should collecu the necessary
funds needed to install the smgns from the printing companies and the sign
painters.
Mr. Reuben Hitchcock remarked that Keswick residents, who are a part of
the Friends of Keswick Organization, have worked hard to have Routes 22 and
231 included as a scenic highway because the residents wanted some protection.
He noted that the area is now, also, a historic district. His home is five
miles from Route 250 on Route 22, and there will probably be 12 or 15 signs
during the course of that five miles, if this ordinance is adopted. He added
that this will not look like a scenic road, but instead, it will look as
though it is a development. He pointed out that there is a good sign on his
farm which indicates the name of the farm is, "Castalia." He stated that on
the Castalia Farm is located the main residence, a manager's house, which was
originally a log cabin and built in 1740 and another small house with a couple
of people living in it. He added that thzs small house was called, "Hiccup
Tavern," by the Bocock children. He reiterated that these three houses are on
his farm, but he does not wanu his farm entrance to look like Interstate 64.
He named people who live close to his farm, and he said these people live
across the road from each other. He thinks these signs will cause the road to
cease from being a scenic route. He said the signs at the farm entrances are
expensive, and most of them would cost approximately $500. He realizes that a
certain amount of visibility is needed for emergency vehicles, but these farm
entrance signs are very visible. He stated that even with poor lighting, the
signs can be seen very well. He suggested the Board consider standards of
visibility, instead of locating signs, such as these, across the County. He
said these signs do not fit in with the countryside in his area of the County.
He said these signs may be acceptable in a development situation, but there
are mostly large farms in the Keswick area.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Hitchcock if he has three mailboxes at his farm
entrance. Mr. Hitchcock replied that there are no mailboxes located at his
farm entrance, because the residents at Castalia pick up their mail at the
Post Office.
Mr. Martin asked if the people who live in the cottages have mailboxes
at the farm entrance. Mr. Hitchcock answered that the cottage residents also
have Post Office boxes. He would not be adverse to having three house numbers
on the post, and he thinks that this would be visible and acceptable. He
believes the Board is considering visibility, and he suggested the supervisors
think about the situation some more before they make these smgns mandatory.
He agrees that a big subdivision should have these identifying signs. He
noted, though, that there are a lot of farms in the County which have three
residences.
June 17, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
M.B. 41, Pg. 263
Ms. Sherry Buttrick commented that she manages a place for a person who
is not a resident of the County, but his farm would be affected by this
proposed ordinance relating to signs on private roads. She noted the road to
which she refers accesses three farms, two of which are over 100 acres. She
pointed ouu that these are farms and not subdivisions, and she would non like
to see a private farm driveway labeled with one of these County signs. She
stated that the farm to which she referred is distinctly in a rural area, and
the signs relate more to an urban area situation. She said there have been
discussions concerning the level of services in the rural area, and a dimin-
ished level of services is expected and appreciated, which cuts down on County
costs. She added that to put a big highway type of sign at a farm entrance is
an insult to the rural character of the County. She went on to say that
Orange County has adopted the same type of system for emergency vehicles, and
she was amazed and saddened to see the individual farms labeled with these
same type of signs. She reiterated that the places to which she is referring
are just farms with cottages. She thinks that having highway type signs at
farm entrances is inappropriate, and one more erosion of rural areas in
Albemarle County.
She then spoke to another aspect of the proposed ordinance by saying
that she would like to repeat a comment she made to Steve Meeks and Maynard
Sipe at an earlier time. She said there are a couple of roads which are going
to be called Buck Mohntain Road. She commented that the Buck Mountain Road
begins at Yancey Mills, goes through Crozet, White Hall, Millington, Free
Union, Earlysville and Advance Mills. It is alarming to her to find people
can live on the same road who live at Yancey Mills, Earlysville or Advance
Mills. She thinks this will be very confusing to the people who deliver
emergency services. She said these emergency people know the roads now by the
traditional names. She remarked that the naming of the roads has gone back to
a point in history that relates to the first name given to the roads. She
noted that the thinking is that the very first point in hisuory should be
honored, rather than honoring names which have been created since that time.
She emphasized that the rescue people know these traditional names, and she
thinks it would be better for the delivery of service to the rural areas if
the names that are publicly known could be used. She said the names of these
publicly known roads fit the different segments of the County.
Ms. Sara Lee Barnes stated that she lives at Cloverfields Farm, which is
located on Routes 22 and 231. Most of her comments have already been ad-
dressed this evening. She noted that there is a large sign at the entrance to
her farm, which has been there for probably 200 years. She has a serious
question as to whether or not the County signs are necessary, but if the
County has to have them, then she would prefer the signs indicate in some way
that the farm enurances are private roads. She said people come down her
driveway several times a week just to drive in, turn around and drive out.
She stated that the farm sign is posted, and she is going to put the word,
"private,., on the farm sign, but it does not seem to matter. She commented
that to put a highway sign at the farm entrance is going to make the road look
even more public than it already is. She agreed with Ms. Buttrick that it is
sad to see what has happened with the farms in Orange County. She noted that
the Orange County signs are a better size and are not as offensive to the eye.
She thinks that the expense of the signs to the County is something to
consider, and she believes the property owners should have the option of
installing their own signs, and then marking them with numbers.
Mr. Martin asked Ms. Barnes how many occupied dwellings are located on
her farm. Ms. Barnes replied that there are almost five occupied houses on
Cloverfields Farm. She added that these houses are occupied by members of the
same family.
At 7:49 p.m., Mr. Bowerman closed the public hearing, since there was no
one else who wished to speak.
Mrs. Humphris remarked that she doubts any of the supervisors realized
what this proposed ordinance would mean to the farm entrances in the County.
Mr. Bain commented that a lot of the problem relates to the size of the sign.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the point has been made as far as signs for subdivi-
sions versus private farms with three or more houses. He does not have a
problem with a farm being identified at the highway with house numbers.
Mr. Martin suggested that the number of dwellings on a road requiring a
sign be increased from three to five, and any owner of a farm with a number
over five would have an option of choosing the sign size or using the existing
sign. He suggested, too, that the policy be changed relating to replacing
signs, so that any sign that had to be replaced could be replaced with a
similar size sign. He added that the increase in the number of dwellings on a
road to five would t'ake care of most of the farms being required to have a
sign, if the house numbers were put at the highway entrance. He went on to
say that the farms with more than five dwellings could use a smaller sign. He
believes this would be a reasonable compromise that would accomplish the same
thing.
Mr. Bain commented that the emergency providers have considered the
situation and have decided these types of signs are necessary, but he has his
doubts. He realizes this efforu relates to emergency work, but he is non in
favor of the large sign, even on the major roads. He would like to know
exactly what VDoT is going to require, before the sign size for this ordinance
is decided upon. He noted that inuerstates are not involved, because there is
June(Page17,10) 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 4~ Pg. 264
no access to private drives off of them. He said that primary roads are
involved, and he mentioned Route 29 South, which is a divided highway, and
vehicles travel quickly on this road. He added that there are farms along
Route 29 South. He would be inclined to look at the overall sign size
totally, because the supervisors have not only gotten objections from people
who own farms, but there are others complaining about th~ signs as they relate
to the scenic nature of the County. He mentioned that there are a lot of
scenic routes in this County. He thinks the supervisors need to be sensitive
to all of the roads in the County in terms of the size of the signs. He still
wants to accomplish the goal of allowing the emergency providers to identify
entrances and have the visibility that is needed. He is hOE interested in
changing the regulation relating to three houses on a road, although he does
not necessarily want a sign put at the entrance to a farm. He believes the
numbers can be put at the entrance of a road without a mandated sign. His
understanding of Mr.. Martin's comments was thaE when there are three or more
units located on a road, the required number could be changed from three to
five, without numbers at the entrance to the road.
Mr. Martin responded that this is not what he said. His suggestion was
to change Section 16.01-1 (c) of the proposed ordinance to indicate that
instead of three or more dwelling units or business structures on public or
private roads requiring signs, that the number be changed to five. Me went on
to say that it would be required to have the numbers at the entrance, and the
numbers would correspond with the units on that particular road. He explained
that with this suggestion, the name of the road where the farm is located
would not have to be changed, however, numbers of the units would be put at
the entrance to the farm.
Mr. Bowerman asked about the time restraints, as far as implementation
of the ordinance is concerned. Mr. Tucker answered that there is some time
available for the supervisors to work with this matter, but there is also a
schedule which involves a lot of different things. He would need to have Tex
Weaver or Wayne Cilimberg to respond, if the supervisors want to extend the
time frame beyond July 1, 1992. Mr. Bowerman stated that when this plan was
adopted, he saw the signs, but he was not thinking about their utilization
quite the way it has been expressed tonight. Mr. Tucker remarked that the
emergency providers are looking at the matter as the best situation from their
perspective. He noted the purpose of the public hearing is to hear other
comments and other perspectives.
Mr. Marshall stated that he zs opposed to any sort of public sign in
front of his farm, no matter how many houses are located there, for the
reasons stated at this meeting. He commenued that people are always driving
into his farm, anyway. He went on to say that if signs are put in front of
farms all over this County, people are going to be driving into the farm
entrances all of the time. Mr. Bowerman commented that he is clearly hearing
this is not goin9 to happen. He said that based on what the supervisors have
said tonight and the public's commenus, there must be some other standard, or
a combination of things that will accomplish the goals of the Egll Emergency
Program and still meet the needs of the community. Mr. Tucker pointed out
that roads are currently named witk mailboxes at entrances, with people's
addresses. He said this could stay the same. He went on to say that if
mailboxes are not at the entrances, then there could be signs with numbers
listed. Mr. Marshall wondered if there would be a problem with numbers of
residences being listed at the bottom of current signs at the farm entrances.
Mr. Tucker and several supervisors agreed that they see nothing wrong with
listing numbers of residences along with current signs, but Mr. Martin
emphasized there should be a limit to the number of houses or businesses on a
road before a County sign is required. He said he was using a mandatory
number of five units as a reasonable compromise. He said Mr. Hitchcock has
been in the Keswick area a long time, and he asked Mr. Hitchcock if he
believes that most of the farms in that area have five or less residences on
them.
Mr. Hitchcock responded that Cloverfields probably has the most resi-
dences, and he believes there are five residences located there, but most of
the farms in that area have less than five units. He agreed that if the
number was raised to five, it would eliminate a lot of the problems relating
to County signs at ftarm entrances. He noted that most of the large farms have
attractive, big, legible signs located at their entrances. Mr. Martin
reiterated that he thinks a mandatory number of five or even six residences,
before a sign is required at farm enurances, would be a reasonable compromise.
Mr. Bowerman suggested the staff take a couple of weeks to deal with the issue
and then make a recommendation to this Board. Mr. Bain brought out the fact
that the sizing of the numbers of residences has not been discussed. He knows
they have to be visible, but he does not know how big the numbers have to be.
He would like to hear comments about the size of the numbers.
Mr. Weaver replied that there is a three inch minimum specification
relating to house numbers. Mr. Bain asked if there was a maximum size
specification for house numbers. Mr. Cilimberg responded, "no." He said
there was only a minimum number size, so that they would be visible.
Mr. Bain mentioned there are some cases where there is not a name and a
residence is not visible, and there is no mailbox. He asked if there has to
be a number at the entrance. Mr. Tucker answered, "yes." Mr. Bain then asked
if the proposed ordinance defines the size of the post when there zs only a
number involved, and there is no mailbox. Mr. Tucker replied that the
June(Pagel7,11) 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) 4.B. 41, Pg. 265
proposed ordinance indicates that a number of at least three inches has to be
visible at the entrance to the property, however, it does no5 distinguish the
size of the post, etc. He inquired if Mr. Bain is suggesting that some
guidelines should be included for posting these numbers. Mr. Bain answered
that he thinks the staff and Board need to think about this situation as it
relates to the size of posts, etc. Mr. Martin commented that if the numbers
are not visible, then the intent of the ordinance has not been met.
Mr. Bowerman ~emarked that he is in the retail business, and a lot of
his customers live in rural areas. He said every time there is a delivery in
a rural area, physical directions have to be acquired, because there is only a
route number and a post office box, which is not shown on the mailbox. He
went on to say there is a need for this ordinance, but it is a need that can
be incorporated into the desires of the community, and both can be accom-
plished. He suggested that the staff come back to this Board with recommenda-
tions on July 1 or July 8, 1992.
Mr. Marshall wondered why the signs cannot be the option of the property
owners. He said if a property owner decides not to put a sign at his or her
entrance, it will only make it more difficult for emergency vehicles to get to
that particular residence. He added that the property owner will realize that
if a sign is not posted, then it will make him or her more vulnerable. He
emphasized he does not know why this option is not offered to the property
owner, because it would solve the problem. Mr. Martin answered that this
would defeat the whole purpose. He said one person might have a sign and
another person would not. He stated that it would be impossible for the
emergency vehicle to know what property would be next on the road. Mr.
Marshall answered that he is talking about private roads. Mr. Martin asked if
Mr. Marshall is referring to private roads with more than five dwellings. Mr.
Marshall replied that he is talking about farms. He reiterated this is
something that could be left up to the landowner. Mr. Martin commented that
he thinks this would make the situation very complicated. Mr. Bowerman stated
that the situation relates either to a farm or a subdivision. He believes
that farms will fall into some sort of criteria, which the staff should be
able to evaluate. He said it would probably not be a necessity to put
anything at the entrance except numbers at the road.
Mr. Bain inquired if Mr. Marshall is indicating he thinks everybody has
to have a number if they live on a private road with three or more residences,
and if they want a sign, they can have that too. Mr. Marshall agreed that
this is his feeling on the matter. He said then the property owners would
have an option of whether or not to install a County sign. Mr. Bowerman asked
whether or not it will be considered a private sign, if a number is put on the
sign at the highway. Mr. Marshall answered that if a farm has three houses
located on it, then three numbers would show underneath the farm sign, if the
property owner wishes to put them there.
Mr. Bain asked if Mr. Marshall is indicating he thinks the property
owner should have the option of posting the numbers of the residences on the
farm. Mr. Marshall replied that the property owner should not be mandated to
put numbers at the entrance to his farm, but he would have the option of not
having the emergency service available to him, in the same way as other
property owners, if this is his choice. He added that if the property owner
does not want an ambulance to come down his driveway, that is his choice, and
he would be putting himself into that position. Mr. Bowerman stated that he
believes the staff should come back to this Board on July 8, 1992 with recom-
mendations, and he is anticipating a public hearing at that time. Mr. Tucker
suggested that, if possible, the staff can get information back to this Board
by July 1, so the supervisors can review it. He said the public hearing could
then be held on July 8, 1992.
Ms. Witcher co~menued that in today's mail there was a letter from the
Planning Department which indicated all of the people who live on the private
drive where she lives have until June 29 to choose a name for that road. She
said originally the information she received said the roads were already
named, and the names could not be changed. She thinks the road naming issue
needs to have more publicity because there is confusing information being sent
to landowners, and she thinks the people need to understand what is really
happening. She added that if these roads do not have to be named, then she
should not have to meet with all of her neighbors for the purpose of naming
the road.
Mr. Perkins stated that all of the public roads have been named, but the
private roads have not. Mr. Cilimberg explained that there is a verification
process in progress, where there were some roads missed, initially, and the
staff is trying to find all of these roads and get them named. Mr. Tucker
remarked that he does not know how to advise Ms. Witcher. He believes,
though, that after July 1, 1992, there will be a better idea of what the
Board's intent will be. He said the discussion of the issue will continue on
July 8, 1992.
Mr. Martin suggested that Ms. Witcher try to meet with the people along
her road so that a name will be chosen, in case the policy is approved
requiring a name for every road. Mr. Tucker told Ms. Witcher that he is
unsure what will be the mandatory number for residences on private roads. He
said it may be five or ten or less.
June 17, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B41, Pg. 266
(Page 12) ·
Ms. Witcher told Board members that it was her understanding when she
talked to Mr. Weaver that the numbers were going to be in conjunction with 20
foot delineations. She said this cannot be done on Brown's Gap Turnpike, if
the driveway is a mile long. She thinks there is a problem in the methodology
that is being used. She also commented that the rescue vehicle will have to
get from its location to the place of the problem. She said the distance is
still the same, and it has nou been changed. She believes that more smaller
fire houses could be located in the County, with perhaps two engines, so that
the response time could be reduced. She added this is how to reduce response
time, instead of going through this expensive exercise. She reiterated that
distances have not changed.
At 8:05 p.m., Mr. Bain moved that the Board continue the discussion of
the proposed Road Naming and Addressing Ordinance, Section 16.01-1 until July
id 1992, to receive the followmng information from staff: 1) whether smaller
road signs are allowed; 2) verify VDoT's standards for road sign size; 3)
provide a recommendation on howmany dwelling units would be acceptable on a
private road before requiring that a road sign be installed; and, 4) whether
numbering is allowed on existing signs identifying properties. At that point,
the discussion would continue to July 8, 1992, when a public hearing would be
held including changes that are discussed at this meeting. Mr. Martin
seconded the motion.
AYES:
NAYS:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin.
None.
Agenda Item No. 7. ZTA-91-05. Public Hearing on an amendment to
Section 5.6.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, Conditions of approval
for Mobile Homes on Individual Lots by the addition thereto of a subsection
"f" reading: "No rental to be made of the mobile home, the same to be occupied
by the owner of the land on which the mobile home is located, or by a lineal
relative or bona fide agricultural employee of the owner. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on June 2 and June 9, 1992.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff's report as follows:
"Addendu~ ReDort: ZTA-91-05 Mobile Home:
Resolution of intent by the Board of Supervisors to restrict
occupancy of administratively approved mobile homes to owner of
property or lineal relative or bona fide agricultural employee in
the fa, rural areas zone and VR, village residential zone.
Backqround:
On July 17, 1991, the Board of Supervisors referred this matter to
the Planning Commission. The issue was subsequently tabled
awaiting recommendation of the Board-appointed Housing Advisory
Committee. Recently, the Housing Advisory Commituee presented its
report to the Board of Supervisors who, in turn, reactivated ZTA-
91-05 together with direction that pertinent Housing Advisory
Committee recommendations related to mobile homes be analyzed by
the Planning Commission. This report discusses Housing Advisory
Committee recommendations related to ZTA-91-05.
Other mobile home strategies/objectives should be discussed as
part of consideration of the report by the Planning Commission/
Board of Supervisors.
Housinq Advisory Committee Recommendations:
The Housing Committee has made the following recommendation
regarding mobile home rental: (MH2) Mobile homes, including
single-wide mobile homes, should be subject to rental like any
other type of housmng (Gl, G2, page 71.)
Discussion:
Attachments A through L discuss issues related to the proposed 'no
rental' clause to be applied to all individually-sited mobile
homes. Of these documents, staff would recommend particular
consideration be given to Attachment A prepared by the County
Attorney together with Attachment I prepared by the Zoning Admin-
istrator. The original Planning staff report on ZTA-91-05 is
Attachment F. (All attachments are on file.)
The following is a review of the disposition of individual mobile
home petitions' from 1981 through 1991:
Between January, 1981 and August, 1991, the County received
390 mobile home petitions.
Of that total, 82 petitions were reviewed by the Board of
Supervisors.
June(Page17,13) 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. Pg. 267
of these 82 petitions, 69 were approved.
Therefore, only 3.3 percent of these petitions during this 10 year
period were disapproved. The following is an analysis of each
petition denied:
SP-81-39 Denied due to public objection and the number of
mobile homes in the area.
3.
4.
5.
SP-81-51 Mobile home was proposed for weekend use.
SP-83-03 - Denied due to proximity to a sawmill.
SP-83-47 - Mobile home was proposed for storage use.
SP-84-50 - Mobile home would have been the fourth one on the
property.
SP-85-23 Mobile home was a proposed rental unit.
SP-85-24' - Mobile home was a proposed rental unit.
SP-85-70 Mobile home was to be attached to an existing
cabin.
SP-87-99 - Denied due to proximity to the state road and
public objection.
10.
SP-88-09 - Proposed to convert interim mobile home to perma-
nent mobile home.
11.
12.
13.
SP-89-92 Mobile home was proposed for storage use.
SP-90-51 Mobile home was a proposed rental unit.
SP-91-09 - Mobile home was proposed for weekend and vacation
use.
Staff opinion is that the inclusion of a 'no rental' provision
together with the Board's demonstrated favor towards 'needed
housing' has provided a balanced approach toward individual mobile
home location.
As to the issue of rental, staff offers the following comments:
As a condition of a special use permit, the 'no rental'
restriction can be deleted by the Board in a particular
case. S~me compelling reason should justify such action to
avoid abuse;
The special use permit is the only mechanism available to
the Board to address the special nature of mobile homes on
individual lots in the Rural Areas, short of repealer.
The Board tends to elevaue consideration of the applicant
above the land use considerations for issuance of a permit
as contained in Section 31.2.4.1. That is to say, review of
mobile home petitions is more personalized than other re-
views and conditions according to such review would seem to
rationally follow (personalized review of mobile homes has
been consistent for decades. Note that staff refrains from
making recommendations regarding mobile homes).
Should the Board choose to abandon personalized review of
mobile homes and focus purely on the content of Section
31.2.4.1 (Basis for Issuance of Special Use Permit by the
Board of Supervisors) the County Real Estate Department
should probably comment in each case on the effecu to land
values in the immediate area. Also, the Planning staff in
each case would emphasize as a major land use consideration
that the Rural Areas is not intended as a residential zone
and, therefore, rental housing would be contrary to the
intent of the Rural Areas zoning district.
The Zonihg Administrator has outlined difficulties involved
in the 'no rental' clause. A parallel exists in the subdi-
vision ordinance in the form of 'family division,' which is
also subject to abuse. The Attorney General has stated that
reasonabl~ provisions and procedures may be undertaken to
avoid subterfuge regarding family divisions.
Recommendation as to ZTA-91-05:
While a 'no rental' provision is an exception to the general rule
of a special use permit (i.e. attached to the land, not the
applicant), such restriction results from a demonstrated effort by
the Board of Supervisors over decades to accommodate this type of
dwelling in the case of need. The facts are that individual
June(Page17,14) 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) 54.B. Pg. 268
mobile home permits are availed to about 90 percent of the land
area of the County and only about three percent of the petitions
filed in the last decade have been disapproved. Given this
background, the County does not appear discriminatory or exclusio-
nary towards, but accommodating to, mobile homes as 'needed
housing' for property owners. Of the eight counties surveyed by
the County Attorney's office, six counties have prohibition or
restrictions on individual mobile homes in their agricultural/
rural districts. Staff opinion is that inclusion of a no rental'
provision together with the Board's demonstrated favor towards
'needed housing' provides a balanced approach toward individual
mobile home location in the RA, Rural Areas, and VR, Village Resi-
dential, zones. Should the Board deem that the 'no rental' provi-
sion is not e~forceable or is not a legal restriction, one alter-
native is to restrict mobile homes to mobile home parks and mobile
home subdivisions which is clearly allowable under the Code of
Virginia.
The Board has adopted a resolution of intent to amend Section
5.6.2 by addition of:
No rental to be made of the mobile home, the same to
be occupied by the owner of the land on which it is
located or by his lineal relative or bona fide agri-
cultural employee.
Staff recommends the following change if this approach is to be
used:
fo
No rental to be made of the mobile home, the same to
be cccupic~ by the primary residence of the owner of
the land on which it is located or ~ of his lineal
relative or bona fide agricultural employee; and shall
not be used for any other Durpose other tb~n a dwell
in~.
Should the Board choose not to adopt the revised language recom-
mended for 5.6.2(f), staff would recommend general repealer of the
'no rental' provision from all special use permits upon which the
same has been imposed. Prior to such action it may be appropriate
to renotify ali adjoining property owners and hold additional
public hearings if warranted. (It is staff's opinion that some
adjoining owners may have been satisfied with the 'no rental'
condition, but would object if the units were available to rent,
weekend, vacation, or storage uses).
Additional Staff Comment-
The intent of the Board has been to avoid unnecessary prolifera-
tion of mobile homes randomly throughout the Rural Areas, on the
one hand, and to allow mobile homes as a legitimate means of
housing on the other. Another approach to this issue, which would
be simple to enforce and potentially more legally sound than 'no
rental' provisions, would be to requzre that the mobile home be
the only dwelling on the property:
Such mobile home shall be the only dwelling on the property
and shall not be used for any purpose other than a primary
place of residence.
Advantages of this approach in staff opinion are:
It would allow for a property owner who may not be able to
afford or desire conventional housing to live on his proper-
ty.
It would be a deterrent to rental housing, yet would allow
opportun'ity for the property owner to recover his/her in-
vestment once the mobile home is placed.
It would largely preclude weekend or vacation units.
It would be simpler to enforce and may be legally more
sound."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 9,
1992, by a vote of six to one, recommended that ZTA-91-05 be denied. He said
in taking this action, the Commission has indicated that it is supporting the
position of the Housing Committee regarding the rental provisions. He added
that the Planning Commission will be dealing with a number of other aspects
regarding mobile homes as outlined in the Housing Committee's report during
the coming weeks.
Mr. Bowerman asked what is the status of all of the special permits
which have been approved administratively without the provision, and what is
the status of all the special permits which have been approved by this Board
with the provision. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the status of the adminls-
June 17, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
M.B. 41, Pg. 269
trative approvals of the special permits does not change. He wenn on to say
the status of the special permits approved with the provision would require an
action by this Board to eliminate that condition on all of those permits. Mr.
Bowerman inquired if the Planning Commission addressed this particular issue.
Mr. Cilimberg answered that thzs issue was pointed out to the Commission
during the meeting, and the Commission members assumed, and the staff noted in
its report, that if this Board did not approve ZTA-91-05, then the Board would
take the necessary action to elimznate this condition on the special use per-
mits.
Mr. Bowerman then stated that it was unclear from the Commission Meeting
minutes whether subsection "f,,, as outlined on Page Five of the staff report,
was discussed by the Commission. He read subsection ,,f,, which stated that,
"Such mobile home shall be the only dwelling on the property and shall not be
used for any purpose other than a primary place of residence.,, Mr. Cilimberg
indicated that subsection ,,f,, on Page Five of the staff report was discussed
by the Planning Commission. He added that it was specifically asked of the
commissioner who made the motion if he was willing to consider subsection ,,f,,
as a substitute, and he was non willing to do so.
Mr. Bowerman commented that he was confusing the conditions as shown on
Page Four with subsection .f, on Page Five. He stated that the staff's last
condition on Page Four has no rental provision. He said this recommendation
refers to the mobile home, only if it is a primary place of residence and
indicates that there cannou be multiple primary places of residence as mobile
homes on the same parcel.
Mr. Bain asked if Mr. Cilimberg would elaborate on the staff's recommen-
dation. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the staff's recommendation addressed the
possibility of proliferation of mobile homes in the rural area. He said the
idea is that in an atypical case, a person is not going to subdivide rural
area property just to place mobile homes on the property on individual elects
to rent. He added that property is too valuable, and this is not likely the
type of speculation that an individual will undertake in a rural area. He
went on to say that by indicating only one mobile home on any one parcel, the
concern that people would start dividing property for mobile home placement,
would be addressed.
Mr. Bain wondered if farm property that is not going to be divided will
be addressed. He noted that several mobile homes could be located on it. Mr.
Cilimberg replied that any property that is not divided can only have one
mobile home located on that parcel, under this provision. Mr. Bain stated
that, without this provision, more than one mobile home could be located on
farms. Mr. Bowerman noted that Health Department regulations are involved,
and two acres of land are needed. Mr. Cilimberg explained that, currently,
all development rights can be exercised on one parcel, as long as there Ks the
necessary acreage to support those rights. He said that division of the
property does not have to take place. He noted that five houses or five
mobile homes could be placed on a piece of property, if there is the necessary
acreage and development rights to support it. He went on to say this proposed
provision would indicate that, while there may be five development rights,
only one mobile home could be put on that parcel. He said that four other
houses could be located there, however.
Mr. Bain wondered if this proposed provision would resErict an agricul-
tural employee. Mr. Cilimberg answered, "no." He said that agricultural
employees are separately covered in the ordinance. Mr. St. John stated that
none of this affects the requirement for a special use permit, so the prolif-
eration problem could be handled by this Board. Mr. Bain and Mr. Cilimberg
both indicated that ~his is true, only if there is an objection. Mr. Cilim-
berg said that, otherwise, the special permits are approved administratively.
Mr. St. John commented that, in the case of a farm, where there is already a
farm house, then a mobile home could not be placed on that farm land, under
this proposed provision. Mr. Bain responded that an agricultural employee
could live in a mobile home located on a farm, but there could not be a
separate trailer located there. He said this regulation is currently in the
ordinance. Mr. St. John read from the ordinance in which it stated that,
"Such mobile home shall be the only dwelling on the property." Mr. Cilimberg
stated that the language to which Mr. St. John referred is under a different
section of the ordinance, and this is differenu from the language relative to
an agricultural employee.
Mr. Marshall questioned the legality of the ordinance. He believes that
having this proposed provision relating to special use permits is basically in
violation of Virginia law. Mr. St. John replied that the staff is trying to
make all of the regulations alike. He does not feel the practice that is
being used now should continue, because it was creamed without an ordinance
change. He said the Planning Commission and this Board, through repeated
mssuance of special use permits, got in the habit of using this practice
without announcing that it was a policy. He stated that there are mobile
homes which are indistinguishable one from the other, and some of the mobile
homes can be rented and some cannot. He added that the only thing that
determined the difference between the rental mobile homes and the mobile homes
which cannon be rented was whether or not there was an objection. He does not
believe that, at this time, the County could enforce any of these provisions
against renting these mobile homes. He said he believes this to be the case,
not because the provision is illegal, but because it has not been applied to
other mobile homes which are in exactly the same situation, except for the
fact that these permits were issued administratively. Mr. Bowerman concurred
He next asked if this Board would also have to take action on the permits
already issued with the rental requirements, if subsection ,,f,. is adopted.
Mr. Cilimberg answered affirmatively.
Mr. Martin ask%d if subsection "f,. is adopted, will there still be a
provision for a special use permit, if someone wants more than one dwelling on
a farm. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the supervisors and Planning Commission
can waive any part of this ordinance, if someone requested a second dwell±ng,
through the special use permit process. Mr. Bowerman stated that this would
not ordinarily be done, as a routine matterl He pointed out that, in his
opinion, if this provision is adopted, the supervisors should look at it as
being the rule, 90 percent of the time.
At this time, Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Kevin Cox stated that he was a member of the Housing Committee and
the Committee's recommendation was to treat all homes the same, whether or not
they are built in factories on steel frames with axles and chassis or factory
built houses on wooden decks. He emphasized the Committee wants all homes to
be treated the same. He said there is the feeling that there is a great deal
of difference between homes which are less than 19 feet wide on a steel
chassis and stick built houses or factory built houses on wooden decks which
are shipped into place on the back of a flatbed truck. He pointed out that
this difference is diminishing every day, and more and more people are finding
their incomes stagnating and costs going up, and they are turn±ng to manufac-
tured homes. He stated that Oakwood and other dealers have very nice homes
which were built in factories, and they are very liveable and would not have a
negative impact on adjoining property values. He went on to say that he knows
of some instances in the County where there are factory built homes on steel
chassis adjacent to stick built homes, and the stick built homes are in such
poor condition they have diminished the value of the factory built homes. He
said the residents ~f the factory built homes have done a very nice job
landscaping and maintaining their properties, and have been forced to plant a
screen so they do not have to see the adjoining property. He noted that this
impacts on property value, and it is not so much the nature of the property,
but the condition of it and how it is maintained, that is important.
Mr. Cox said there are several different issues in this Zoning Text
Amendment, but the one which bothers him the most, is that it is promoting
discrimination against one segment of the society, which is those people who
rent their homes. He does not know if this is legally defensible, but it is
not ethical, and it is not in the charge of this Board to promote that type of
discrimination. He hopes the supervisors will deny this amendment for that
reason. He would also like to say that he personally does not think that,
given the numbers, affordable houszng is that much an issue. He-added that
some people may be inclined to apply for a permit, if this amendment is
denied, but he really does not think it will make a great deal of difference.
He reiterated that the proposed amendment sends a message, which seems to say
that if a person rents and lives in a manufactured home less than 19 feet
wide, then that person is not wanted in this County. He stated that this is
wrong. He said everybody is needed in this County as a member of the society.
He stated, again, that there zs a big change in the nature of housing, and
more and more people are living in manufactured housing. He said that
manufactured housing is becoming more and more acceptable.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Cox, as a Housing Committee member, how he views
the wording of subsection "f,,, as outlined on Page Five. Mr. Cox replied that
he does not agree with subsection "f., on Page Five. He said he finds it
objectionable, and thinks it is unnecessary. He noted that Mr. Bowerman has
already pointed out that Health Department standards have to be meu and two
acres of land are needed. He said that subsection "f,. on Page Five singles
out manufactured units. He emphasized, again, that these are all homes, no
matter how they are built. He said this condition is irrelevant because a
person could put a double-wide mobile home on the property. Mr. Bowerman said
this is true only to the extent that the ordinance deals with the number of
dwelling units that can be located on an un-subdivided parcel.
Mr. Bain asked if the Housing Committee considered the issue of no one,
other than an owner of a mobile home park, owning more than one rental mobile
home. Mr. Cox answered, "no." He added, though, that he personally knows of
some people in the County who do own more than one rental mobile home. He now
thinks there is a need for rental units, and if somebody wants to put five
trailers on two acre lots on their property and renu them and maintain them
according to existing regulations, and they are designed to protect the
health, safety and welfare of the public, then he thinks this ~s fine. He
said it will create more affordable housing in the County. He stated that
when he made his earlier suggestion, he was trying to find a way to appease
the Planning Commission and develop a compromise. He said he now finds this
objectionable, and contrary to his overall goal, which is to see an adequate
supply of affordable housing created in Albemarle County.
Mr. Ed Wayland stated that he is Director of the Charlottesville/Albe-
marle Legal Aid Society, but he was not at this meeting in this particular
role. He said, instead, he was present because he is a resident of the
Scottsville District. He added that, while he is not here in his professional
role, during the co~rse of his duties, he has come to see that there is a
serious need for housing for a large segment of the community. He said this
June 17, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B41. PS. 271
(Page 17) '
need has been identified in the County's Comprehensive Plan, and this need has
been confirmed by the Housing Committee. He suggested that it is important
steps be taken to confirm this Board's encouragement for development in
whatever ways are available for additional housing which is affordable for low
income people in this community. He thinks there is a tendency on the part of
some people to feel prejudiced against mobile homes, and there is a tendency
to feel prejudiced against renters, which he believes is especially unfortu-
nate, given the way in which the housing market has developed in this communi-
ty. He added that a significant proportion of the people who live in this
area are not able to afford to buy houses. He asked where these people are
going to live, and he pointed out that they are going to have to live some-
where. He stated that these people are, more and more, being forced out of
Albemarle County. He thinks this is unforEunate, it is a loss to the County,
and it is unfair to the people. He encouraged the Board not to adopt this
ordinance as written.
Mr. Wayland said he supports Mr: Cox's comments in urging the supervi-
sors to view mobile homes as equivalent to other project housing and permit
rental housing wherever the home owner deems appropriate and consistent with
other regulations. He thinks, too, it is appropriate to deal with people's
concerns about this type of housing in other ways. He added that this
ordinance indicates to people in this County that if he or she owns a piece of
land, wherever it is, and they own a mobile home, however nice it is, and if
they want to put it on their land and rent it to people however responsible or
dedicated they are to maintaining the mobile home in a beautiful and nice
condition, it cannot be done. He went on to say that this cannot be done
because it has been decided by a political jurisdiction and the community that
this and other types of houses are not desired. He said because of that the
land owner cannot put the trailer on his own property and rent it. He added
that the special use permit process allows this Board to stay in touch with
what is happening, and he thinks that denying this ordinance would affirm the
importance of providing additional increased numbers of houses to lower and
middle income people. He stated that it is significant that the Housing
Committee report was relied on by the Planning Commission, and the Planning
Commission was so strongly against this direction. He added that these are
people who are delegated with the task of looking at such issues. He suggest-
ed to this Board that it makes sense to take the Commission's recommendations
seriously. He believes, also, that there are some legal uncertainties about
the impact of this ordinance. He said it is important to recognize the large
number of people in our community who need more housing opportunities.
Since there was no one else who wished to speak, Mr. Bowerman closed the
public hearing.
Mr. Bain gave a scenario of a person owning 31 acres of land with five
two acre development rights and a 21 acre development right. He asked if cur-
rently a person could put stick built houses or other cottages on that
property without subdividing and without anything else except Health Depart-
ment approval. Mr. Cilimberg responded that site plan approval is necessary,
if there are going to be over two houses involved. Mr. Bain then inquired if
site plan approval ms needed, if one house is built at a time over a six or
seven year period. Mr. Cilimberg answered that once a person builds more than
two houses on the same parcel, site plan approval is needed. Mr. Perkins
commented that road requirements would be necessary for more than two houses.
Mr. Cilimberg concurred. He said the road requirements would be involved
during that review process. Mr. Bowerman remarked that it also has to be
proven that the land is subdividable. Mr. Cilimberg agreed. He added that
the land has to be proven to be subdividable, even if a second house is being
built. Mr. Bain stated that once a person has his own home, plus two others,
no matter whether they are mobile homes, or manufactured ones, etc., there has
to be a road constructed, unless there is a waiver. He then asked what the
road standards would be for three units on a tract of land. Mr. Cilimberg
replied that the standards would relate to the Subdivision Ordinance. He
pointed out that this Board recently approved the changes in the Subdivision
Ordinance for road standards. He stated he was referring to private road
regulations.
Mr. Bain asked what is the road width for a private road. Mr. Cilimberg
replied that he does not have a copy of the Subdivision Ordinance at this
meeting, so he is unsure about the private road width. He said, however, that
a commercial entrance is required after two houses are built. Mr. Bain then
wondered if the requirements would still have to be met, once two units are
built, on larger tracts of land, such as a farm. Mr. Cilimberg answered
affirmatively. He added that once a person exceeds the building of two
houses, the applicable requirements for road design and building site will
have to be met. Mr. Bain stated that the Planning Commission has discussed
proliferation. He said though, that if a person is constructing these houses
on his land, he is going to have to spend considerable money to upgrade the
road and get a site plan, etc. Mr. Cilimberg commented that each one of the
mobile homes will have to be applied for through the special use permit
process. He added that the mobile homes could get administrative approvals,
if there is no opposition.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that he had thought Mr. Bain and Mr. Cilimberg
were discussing a 31 acre farm, but, instead, they were talking about the
traditional stick built cottage type development. He emphasized that once
there are two cottages built, there has to be a site plan process and the
conditions of a prmvate road have to be met.
June(Page17,18) 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. Pg. 272
Mr. Bain agreed. He wondered if this proposed amendment is denied, will
the property owner who wanus to put manufactured housing on the property still
have to meet the same requirements in terms of site plan, road conditions and
commercial entrance. Mr. Cilimberg replied that manufactured housing is still
considered as dwelling units, so the same regulations would apply. Mr.
Bowerman stated that this would preclude everybody except for the most serious
person from subdividing and putting stick built homes or manufactured units on
a piece of property. Mr. Bain responded that subdividing would not have to be
done. He noted that subdividing does not have to be done now for manufactured
housing. Mr. Bowerman concurred, but he said there was infrastructure costs
involved that would be associated with manufactured housing. Mr. Bain agreed.
He said road improvements would be significant, but they are waivable by the
Planning Commission, under the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Cilimberg replied
that minimum road standards are not waivable. He stated that the Commission
could waive the requirements for a private road versus a public road. He
added that the commissioners could also agree to a waiver on road width, and
they have been asked to do that before~ He pointed out that this is a
Planning Commission decision and it has to go through a deliberate process.
Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Cilimberg is referring to hard surface roads.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that hard surface roads are not required until there
are six or more dwelling units. He noted there are a lot of other standards
that have to be met, also, such as rolling or mountainous terrain. Mr. Bain
stated that a person considering this type of rental project would still have
to spend a lot of money. Mr. Perkins asked if an applicant could apply for
the clustering provision, and put mobile homes on a piece of land, under that
provision. Mr. Cilimberg answered that this would be possible. Mr. Bowerman
commented that each request relating to the clustering provision would be
handled separately with a special use permit. Mr. Bain remarked that the
commissioners wanted to have a lot more discussion as far as the overall
picture is concerned before they decide whether or not to approve this
amendment. He said the commissioners did not think there was something wrong
with subsection "f,,, but they just did not think that now was the time to
approve it. Mr. Cilimberg stated that Mr. Bazn is referring to the new
subsection "f.,,
Mr. Martin commented that he would like to see the discussion that the
commissioners had about this matter. Mr. Bain said he is inclined to have the
new subsection "f" included in the amendment, but he is not sure that it
really has to be addressed. He mentioned problems that Fluvanna and Louisa
Counties have had. He thinks that Albemarle County officials have to be
consistent and recognize the need for housing, but they also need to be alert
to what happens over a period of time. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the staff
had wanted to propos'e a condition that would deal with such issues. He
suggested the supervisors look on Page Two of the staff report where there are
a number of examples of mobile homes that were disapproved. He said the fifth
example on Page Two referred to a mobile home which would have been the fourth
one on the property. He noted, however, that there have not been a lot of
these situations.
Mr. Bain pointed out that the supervisors have turned down requests in
the past, for vacations and weekend use. Mr. Cilimberg concurred. He said
that these types of things would have been denied because they were not
permanent housing. Mr. Martin suggested the supervisors take a similar
position as the Planning Commission and deny this amendment. He said the
individual requests could be dealt with, but they do not have to be tied to
any particular policy. He added that since the staff and Board have gone this
long with administrative approvals and special use permit approvals, the next
two agenda items can be considered, and the Board can decide to make or not to
make an exception, and keep the policy the same until a later date. Mr.
Bowerman explained that the staff is indicating that if this Board chooses not
to adopt this amendment tonight, then the supervisors should immediately take
another action. Mr. Bain stated that the Board may have to have a public
hearing. He said if a special permit is put into place, it is a legislative
action. Mr. Martin said he does not see why immediate action is necessary.
Mr. Bowerman commented that he had misinterpreted Mr. St. John's and the
staff's earlier commenus. Mr. Cilimberg stated that if the Board does not
take action, there will be some requests remaining. Mr. Tucker said there
would be some nonconforming mobile homes in the County. Mr. Bain responded
that the mobile hom~s would not be nonconforming. He said these mobile homes
would have a condition that this Board would not enforce.
Mr. St. John asked the Board to assume that this item was not on the
agenda, and the same regulations were in force. He said there would be some
special use permits which have been issued with restrictions against rentals,
and in his opinion, this restriction is not enforceable.
Mr. Marshall remarked that he believes this restriction might be against
the law. Mr. St. John replied that is why the restriction is not enforceable.
He explained that if the County tries to enforce the restriction, and the
owner does not do what the County officials are requiring, then the matter
would have to be taken to Court, so the Court can order the person to remove
the mobile home. He said the Courn is not going to do this. His advice is
not to take the matter to court. He did not say that something had to be done
immediately, but he pointed out that tomorrow these permits with the restric-
tions that are not enforceable will still be in existence. He mentioned that
nobody has really raised any questions, except for the two people involved
June 17, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) ~4.B4], Pg.273
(Page 19) -
with the next two agenda items. Mr. Marshall wondered if the restriction is
not enforceable and someone comes before this Board and asks for the right not
to comply with this restriction, how does this Board have the right to turn
them down. Mr. St. John answered that he does not feel this Board has the
right to turn down such a request. He added that there ms a lot that is being
missed. He said the Housing Committee Report, and Mr. Cox's and Mr. Wayland's
positions address a lot more than just a repeal of the rental situation. He
went on to say that, assuming the supervisors repeal the rental restriction,
there are still more questions with which to deal. He asked if this Board is
still going to requi're that a need be demonstrated by a particular applicant
in order to issue a special use permit. He said this is what is done now. He
wondered if the supervisors would permit speculative mobile homes. He said
that people could locate mobile homes on their property, even though they may
not know of anyone who wants to live in them, but they know there is a need
for housing in the County. He asked if the supervisors are going to continue
to ask each applicant to show a need or will this practice be abolished.
Mr. Martin stated this is why he thinks the issue needs to be taken one
step at a time. He next made a motion that ZTA-91-05 be denied. Mr. Marshall
seconded the motion.
AYES:
NAYS:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr
Martin. ·
None.
Mr. Bain remarked that the criteria for special use permits needs to be
studied, and the need aspect should be examined. Mr. St. John agreed, but he
said the criteria should be considered in a broader sense, even though the
need aspect is the main question. He went on to say that if there is no
objection, then the administrator will hOE put the rental restriction on the
permit, and neither will he require any showing of need. He does not think it
is lawful to have an entirely different set of rules, based on an objection or
a lack of an objection. He said this practice has to be eliminated.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-91-39. Willie Mae Hoover. Public Hearing on a
request to amend SP-88-86 in order to permit rental of a single-wide mobile
home on 5.0 ac zoned RA. Property on pvt rd on W side of Rt 20 approx 2.7 mi
S of Rt 742. TM102,P1E. Scottsville Dist (Deferred from April 15, 1992).
Mr. Cilimberg informed Board members that this request from Willie Mae
Hoover asks for permission to rent a single-wide mobile home on 5.0 acres of
land zoned RA. He stated the request would require the supervisors remove
Conditions Six and Eight from the original special use permit, which is shown
on Page Two of Attachment A (copy on file).
At this time, Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing. No one came
forward to speak, so the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bain moved that SP-91-39 be approved as the original permit was
approved in 1988, except that Condition Numbers Six and Eight be deleted. Mr.
Martin seconded the motion.
AYES:
NAYS:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr
Martin. '
None.
(Note: The conditions removed from the permit read:)
6. Mobile home permit is issued for use by the applicant or
applicant's immediate family only;
8. Mobile home shall not be rented.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-91-41. Gifford & Rachel Crawford. Public
Hearing on a request to amend SP-91-15 in order to permit rental of a single-
wide mobile home on 2.0 ac zoned RA. Property on N side of Rt 776 approx 3/10
mi W of Rt 664. TM18,P8J. White Hall Dist (Deferred from April 15, 1992).
Mr. Cilimberg informed Board members that, in order to accommodate the
request of the applicants, which is to permit the rental of a single-wide
mobile home on 2.0 acres of land zoned RA, Condition Seven, as shown on
Attachment A, Page Two (copy on file), would have to be removed.
At this time, Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing, but no one came
forward to speak, so the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bain moved approval of SP-91-41, which was a request to amend
SP-91-15 in order to permit rental of a single-wide mobile home on 2.0 acres
of land, zoned RA, with all of the conditions previously approved, except for
Condition Number Six. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion.
June(page17,20) 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 274
AYES:
NAYS:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin.
None.
(Note: The condition removed from the permit read:)
6. Mobile home permit shall only be occupied by Gifford &
Rachel Crawford or their family.
(Note: The Board recessed at 8:51 p.m. and reconvened at 9:01 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-92-21. Keswick Acquisition Corporation. Public
Hearing on a request to amend previous special use permits in order to allow
the connector road between Rt 731 (Country Club Drive. & Rt 616 to be a
private rd rather than a public rd. Rd proposed to serve the Keswick Country
Club & Inn. Property on E side of Rt 731 at its inters with Rt 744. TM80,P's
8,8Z,9,60A,61,62&70; TM94jP42a. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on June 2 and June 9, 1992.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff's report as follows:
"Petition: Keswick Acquisition Corporation petitions the Board of
Supervisors to amend a previous special use permit (SP-85-53) in
order to allow a connector road (Club Drive) between Rt. 731 and
Rt. 616 to be a private road rather than a public road. This road
has been propQsed to serve the Keswick Country Club and Inn,
existing parcels and proposed lots reviewed in SP-85-53. Proper-
ty, described as Tax Map 80, Parcels 8, 8Z, 9, 60A, 61, 62, and 70
and Tax Map 94, Parcel 42A, is located on the east side of Rt. 731
at its intersection with Rt. 744 in the Rivanna Magisterial
District. This site is not located within a designated growth
area.
Character of the Area: Club Drive currently exists as a private
road constructed from Route 731 to Wood Lane in the Keswick
development (Reference Point A to Point B shown on Attachment C--
copy on file). The Keswick Country Club facilities and Ashley Inn
are currently under construction at the eastern end of the proper-
ty. The sewage treatment plant and the golf maintenance facility
are under construction on the west side of Carroll Creek, just
north of 1-64. The golf course is nearly complete. There are 49
parcels which utilize the private road system within the develop-
ment, 30 of which are owned by the Keswick Acquisition Corpora-
tion. One single-family residence is under construction by the
Keswick Acquisition Corporation.
ADDlicant's ProDosal: The applicant is proposing to amend previ-
ous special use permit conditions of approval to allow Club Drive
to be a private rather than public road.
Summary and Recommendations: Staff supports the request for
private roads based on the applicant's demonstration of alleviat-
ing the dangem of significant degradation of the environment in
accordance with Section 18.36(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance. In
accordance with Section 18-36(d) (4), the Planning Commission must
make a positive finding that there is a public purpose served by
the connection of the proposed private road to two state roads.
Staff opinion is this connection does provide public benefit by
allowing convenient access to the development and reducing traffic
on the intolerable roads that would otherwise be utilized for
access. Therefore, staff recommends approval of SP-92-21.
Planning and ZoninG History: The history of this property is
extensive. The following is a summary of the reviews most appli-
cable to this request.
SP-85-53 Tom J. Curtis Special use permit to allow the
subdivision of 37 single-family residential lots on 284
acres located south and east of the golf course. Condition
#5 stated, 'Virginia Department of Highways and Transporta-
tion approval and acceptance of proposed public roads with
specific requirement that Club Drive from Route 731 to Route
616 be built to State standards and accepted by the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation., The lots were
never platted, however, the special use permit is still
valid. Road plans have been approved for the entire length
of Club Drive as a public road. The action letter is mn-
cluded as Attachmenu D (copy on file).
SP-$5-54. Tom J. Curtis Special use permit to allow six
guest rooms in two existing cottages and 36 guest suites in
the proposed inn. Condition #4 required: "Bonding and/or
consuruction of the connector road from Route 731 to Route
616 and the central well system shall be required prior to
issuance of building permit for the new guest rooms/suites;
provided that the six (6) existing suites in the clubhouse
may be renovated withouu compliance with this condition."
· SP-86-02 Keswick Country Club Land Trust - Request to amend
conditions #1 and #4 of SP-85-54. This approval requires
the bonding and/or construction of the connector road prior
to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the inn rather
than prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Comprehensive Plan: This site is not located in a designated
growth area. This site is located in Rural Area II.
Staff Comment: The analysis of this request will be presented in
three sections:
I. Private Road vs. Public Road
II. Connection between Route 731 and Route 616
III. Private Road Maintenance
I. Private Road vs. Public Road: The main purpose of this
request is to amend Condition $5 of SP-85-53 to allow utilization
of a private road design for Club Drive. The applicant has
submitted a private road request in accordance with Section 18-
36(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance (see Attachment E). The
request cites the following reasons (summarized by staff) as
justification for a private road.
Enhancement of the Physical Environment - Reduction in the
amount of tree removal and reduction in the grading require-
ments.
Security - There is a public purpose to be served by the
location of security gates at both ends of the residential
development (see Attachment C).
Safety - Low speeds and restrictions on access will contrib-
ute significantly to enhance the safety of residents and the
guest of the inn and golf course.
In addition, the applicant has prepared a technical comparison
between the approved public road alignment and the proposed
private road alignment (see Attachment F). This analysis indi-
cates the public road construction would occasion 67 percent
increase in cut and a 55 percent increase in fill compared to the
private road proposed. The Engineering Department has reviewed
the applicant's justification and stated their support of the
private road request (see Attachment G).
II. Connection between Route 731 and Route 616: Section 18-
36(b) (4) of the Subdivision Ordinance states:
'Except where required by the commission to serve a specific
public purpose, such private road shall not be designed to
serve through traffic nor to intersect the state highway
system in more than one location;'
These private road provisions require the Planning Commission to
make a positive finding that there is a public benefit to be
served by permitting the private road (i.e., Club Drive) to inter-
sect two public roads (Route 731 to Route 616). Access to the
property is currently from Route 731 and 744, both of which are
non-tolerable roads. Staff opinion is that establishment of the
connector road would reduce traffic to Routes 731 and 744 by
providing a second access point for the entire development conve-
nient to 1-64. (It should be noted that residents, inn guests,
and golf club members' will be provided access through the security
gates.)
Condition #4 of SP-85-54 requires the bonding and/or construction
of the entire length of the connector road from Route 731 and
Route 616. The subsequent approval of SP-86-02 simply allowed the
bonding to be done with the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy
rather than with the issuance of the building permit. Without the
connector road, any guest or member of the facility travelling on
Interstate 64 from the east would be forced to travel north on
Route 616 past the Keswick property to Route 22 and then south on
Route 731, an intolerable road. In addition, emergency vehicles
would not be provided the most convenient access to the develop-
ment without the connection. For these reasons, staff opinion is
a public purpose is served by the connection of the private road
Routes 731 and Route 616.
III. Private Road Maintenance: In the past, staff has expressed
concern about mixing residential and commercial uses on private
roads due to potential inequities in maintenance costs and respon-
sibilities. This proposal could involve three parties in the
June 17, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
M.B. 41, Pg. 276
maintenance agreement: 1) the existing individual lot owners; 2)
the Keswick Acquisition Corporation as lot owners; and, 3) the
Keswick Acquisition Corporation for the traffic generated by the
inn and golf facilities. Staff has not received a proposed
maintenance agreement for review, however, the applicant has
provided a petition from 12 of the 14 existing lot owners in the
development stating their support of Club Drive as a private road
(Attachment H). The petition also states, 'This petition in no
way obligates the undersigned to any homeowners association road
maintenance agreement'
Staff has received no objection regarding road maintenance respon-
sibilities resulting from this proposal. Staff opinion is this
concern may be addressed with a condition requiring staff and
County Attorney approval of road maintenance agreements, however,
the details of those agreements will not be available before the
Board of Supervisors action on this request. It should be noted
Keswick Acquisition Corporation could be responsible for the
entire maintenance costs for Club Drive as they are the party
requesting the change from public to private road. Subsequently,
the 14 existing lot owners may choose to enter the maintenance
agreement for Club Drive for enforcement purposes only.
Summary and Recommendation:
Staff opinion is the applicant's request for private roads is
acceptable with the justification provided based on the amount of
environmental degradation a public road would occasion compared to
a private roa~ design. The applicant has agreed to build or bond
the entire length of Club Drive with the issuance of a certificate
of occupancy for the inn and golf facilities consistent with the
approval of SP-86-02. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the
SP-92-21 Keswick Acquisition Corporation petition subject to the
following conditions of approval:
2 o
3 o
Department of Engineering approval of a private road design
for Club Drive from Route 731 to Route 616. (Amendment to
Condition #5 of SP-85-53.)
Staff and County Attorney approval of private road mainte-
nance agreement for Club Drive.
Security gates shall be located in the locations shown on
Attachment C. The gates shall be installed prior to County
acceptance of the private road (Club Drive).
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 19,
1992, unanimously recommended approval of the petition, subject to the
conditions recommended by staff, but with amendments thereto. At the end of
Condition No. 3, the following sentence was added: "The security gates shall
be continuously controlled at all times. Also, a Condition No. 4 was added
reading: "In accordance with Condition #2 of SP-86-02, the bonding and/or
construction of a connector road is required prior to issuance of a Certifi-
cate of Occupancy for the inn. As per the approval of this petition, the
bonding of the entire length of Club Drive, between Route 731 and Route 616,
shall be for a period of two years from the Board of Supervisors approval date
with the option to renew the bond administratively for a period not to exceed
one year."
Mr. Perkins asked what is meant by the condition that the security gates
would be continuously controlled at all times. Mr. Cilimberg responded that
there was a concern of one or more of the commissioners that the security
gates needed to be manned or secured in some form at all times. He said
someone accessing this property from either point would have to pass through
those gates which are controlled, either by an automatic gate or a person.
Mr. Perkins clarified that the gates do not have to be manned. Mr. Cilimberg
concurred. He said that devices could be used on the gates, without having a
person there at all times.
At this time, Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Steele Howan stated that she owns a lot in the Keswick Subdivision
that was one of the original deeded lots in 1952. She said it is a lot on
what was originally called Fairway Drive. She is concerned about the mainte-
nance of the proposed road, if it is going to be a private road. She under-
stands that, at the Planning Commission meeting, a maintenance agreement was
developed. She has not seen this maintenance agreement, even though she has
asked Mr. Bradshaw, a representative of Keswick Corporation, for a copy of it.
She was told that it did not exist at the present time, and it was still at
the lawyer's office. She said that another concern of hers was that school
buses would not have access to this road, and it will be over a mile for
children to walk to 'a school bus stop, in either direction. She knows that
people say it is good for children to walk, but she thinks that this is a long
way. She added that if school buses would be permitted on this road, then
that would cease to be a problem. She next commented that it does not seem
right that the roads in the back part of the property have hOE been completed
with the plan. She talked to Mr. Bradshaw, and one of the roads appears to be
June 17, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B.41. 277
(Page 23 ) -
on the map. She could not get any satisfaction as to how her property rights,
that were deeded to her in the deed that she purchased with the lot, would be
accommodated. She stated that the map shows a road that goes by her property,
but she is not sure this road is in the plan. She reiterated that she has
concerns about the whole road issue. She stated, though, that the people are
doing a nice job there, and it seems to be a well planned and well thought out
project.
Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Howan if she has a dwelling on this lot. Ms.
Howan responded that she does not have a dwelling located on this particular
lot.
Mr. Gordon Wheeler stated that he has been a resident of the Keswick
Country Club area for 37 years. He clarified that the lot which Ms. Howan
owns will not be served by this road. He then said that he was at this
meeting to speak for all residents now living in the Keswick Country Club
area. He has a petition signed by all but one resident. He stated that the
Keswick Country Club was organized in 1947, and since that time, the residents
have been served by private roads. He noted that even with all of the
problems with the Club, this has always been a nice, quiet and peaceful place
to live. He said his group supports the petition and the private road. He
added that there is a road agreement serving the loop at this time, and the
residents have been maintaining this road, prior to the Keswick Acquisition
Group obtaining the property. He is hopeful that one of the conditions of the
special use permit will be for maintenance of the road, and he hopes the
homeowners and the corporate owner can work together on this matter. He
thinks the supervisors should approve a private road for a small development
such as this, because across Route 250 at Glenmore there will be approximately
500 homes, and private roads have been approved for that subdivision. He
assured the Board that all of the present residents who will be served by this
road who now live at Keswick will support the private road position.
Since there was no one else who wished to speak, Mr. Bowerman closed the
public hearing.
At this time, Mr. Marshall moved for approval of SP-92-21, subject to
the four conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Martin asked if there is a road serving Ms. Howan's property at the
current time. Ms. Howan responded that there is a road which comes off of
Route 616, goes down a gravel road and travels along her property, but this
road is not shown on this plan at all. Mr. Martin wondered if the proposed
private road changes this existing road in any way. Ms. Howan replied that it
does not appear that her property will be served by this existing road. Mr.
Martin asked if this existing road will be eliminated. Ms. Howan responded
that she does not see the existing road on the map. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out
Ms. Howan's property on the map. He said the map shows a road passing this
parcel.
Mr. Pete Bradshaw, representing the Keswick Acquisition Corporation,
stated that there was an old, private prescriptive easement which' wenE through
Foxcroft Farm and served this particular lot. He said at than time this
access was closed, although he is non sure if it was done legally. He added
that a new access was deeded, and he pointed this out on the map. He went on
to say this is the road that exists today for this particular parcel. He
pointed ouE that there is also a deeded access across a dam which has been
breached because of flood conditions and physical alterations. He showed, on
the map, two deeded accesses to the lot in question. He added that this
section of the property has not been planned or platted, and this road
alignment has been proposed as part of the amendment to the special use
permit. He said it is quite obvious that when the internal access to the lots
is designed, there will be a system to access this lot. He reiterated that
there will be no denial of legal access to that lot, because the access is
guaranteed.
Mr. Martin asked Mr. Bradshaw to address the issue of school buses and
whether or not they will be allowed on this private road. Mr. Bradshaw
responded that it is his understanding that the County school system does not
deliver children to their door zn privately maintained subdivisions. Mr.
Perkins stated that school buses do bring children to their doors in subdivi-
sions, in some cases. Mr. Bradshaw answered that this does happen in some
cases, but a request has to be made. He understands that in the future this
might not be done at all. Mr. Tucker stated that he does not know about the
situation in the future, but the School Board now acts on individual requests
for school bus delivery of children to their doors in subdivisions. Mr.
Bradshaw said it would be up to the individual landowners to request this ser-
vice.
Mr. Perkins wondered if there would be any problem with the school bus
getting through the security gates. Mr. Bradshaw answered that he thinks this
would be left up to the individual homeowners to decide. Mr. Perkins asked if
the homeowners ask for this service, will there be any problem, from Mr.
Bradshaw's perspective. Mr. Bradshaw reiterated that this is a decision for
the homeowners to make.
Mr. Bowerman inquired as to how the school buses will physically get
through the gates, i.f the homeowners want school buses on this private road.
Mr. Bradshaw replied that the school bus driver could have a card for an
June(page17,24) 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) 4.B. Pg. 278
electronic system, or during those times of the day, more than likely, a
person will be on duty at the gates. He added that it has not been determined
conclusively what times during the day the gates will be manned, but they will
be controlled 24 hours a day. At the present time, Mr. Bradshaw said the
school bus drops the children off at a certain point, which he showed the
supervisors on the map, and the children walk into the property to their
individual homes on a daily basis.
Mr. Martin then seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin.
None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. Department of Engineering approval of a private road design
for Club Drive from Route 731 to Route 616. (Amendment to
Condition #5 of SP-85-53.)
2. Staff and County Attorney approval of private road mainte-
nance agreement for Club Drive.
3. Security gates shall be located in the locations shown on
Attachment C. The gates shall be installed prior to County
acceptance of the private road (Club Drive). The security
gates shall be continuously controlled at all times.
4. In accordance with Condition ~2 of SP-86-02, the bonding
and/or construction of a connector road is required prior to
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the inn. As per
the approval of this petition, the bonding of the entire
length of Club Drive, between Route 731 and Route 61S, shall
be for a period of two years from the Board of Supervisors-
approval date with the option to renew the bond administra-
tively for a period not to exceed one year.
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-92-25. Winter Haven Limited Partnership (appli-
cant~.South ~ntops ~I Land Tr~st (owner). Public Hearing on a request to
perm~u a 23,420 sq ~E nursing nome on 1.86 acs zoned R-15. Property on S side
of S~uth Pantops Dr approx 1/4 mi W of State Farm Blvd. TM78,P20. Rivanna
Dist~ (This property is located in Neigb_borhood 3.) (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on June 2 and June 9, 1992.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff's report as follows:
"Characuer of the Area. The site is predominately clear near the
road with wooded areas on steeper slopes leading to the Rivanna
River to the west and a large drainage swale to the south. The
Overlook Apartment Complex and State Farm Insurance Offices are
located approximately 1200 feet to the south.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to provide a 40
bedroom (80 bed) facility consisting of two buildings. It is
estimated that 25 percent of the resident population will be non-
ambulatory and fire protection measures will be designed accord-
ingly. The facility will require a total of 17 employees with 10
people working during the day shift. The applicant has provided a
detailed description of this request included as Attachment C. A
site plan has been submitted which is being reviewed in conjunc-
tion with this special use permit (see Attachment D).
Planning and Zoning History: Several applications have been
reviewed for Tax Map 78, Parcel 20, however, none affect this site
directly. The existing R-15 Residential zoning is the original
1980 designation on the property.
Comprehensive ~lan: This site is located in Neighborhood 3 and is
recommended for high densiEy residential development.
Summary and Recommendation: In addition to the requirements of
Section 31.2.4.1, the two issues to be addressed in the review of
this special use permit are: 1) Compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan, and, 2) Compliance with Supplementary Regulations (Section
5.1.13).
1. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: This site is recommended
for high density residential use with a density of 11 to 34
dwelling units per acre. Based on the proposed 1.86 acres site
for this facility, the project is within the recommended density
of the Comprehensive Plan (21.5 dwelling units per acre).
2. Compliance with Supplementary Regulations (5.1.131): This
section of the Zoning Ordinance regulates rest homes, nursing
homes, convalescent homes and orphanages.
June(page125)7, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 279
Such uses shall be provided in locations where the physical
surroundings are compatible to the particular area:
Adjacent land uses consist of the Overlook Apartments complex and
the State Farm office building to the south. To the west the site
slopes down to the Rivanna River and properties to the east and
north are zoned R-15 Residential and presently undeveloped.
Adjacent land uses both proposed and existing are compatible with
this request.
b. No such use shall be established zn any area either by right
or by special use permit until the Albemarle County Fire
Official has determined that adequate fire protection is
available to such use;
Required fire flow is 500 gpm at 20 psi since all buildings are
proposed to be ~sprinklered. A fire hydrant exists approximately
200 feet distant and available fire flow is 2500 9Pm at 20 psi.
c. Generally, such uses should be located in proximity to or in
short response time to emergency medical and fire protection
facilities. Uses for the elderly and handicapped should be
convenient to shopping, social, education and cultural uses;
Fire response will be provided by Stony Point Fire Company, East
Rivanna Fire Company and Charlottesville Fire Department. Emer-
gency medical response would be provided by the CharlotEesville-
Albemarle Rescue Squad. The service from these sites meets the
recommended response time stated in the Community Facilities Plan.
The site is located in close proximity to the Riverbend Shopping
Center. In addition, the Senior Center, Piedmont Virginia Commu-
nity College, and the University of Virginia would all be within
approximatsly 15 minutes travel time from this facility.
d. No such use shall be operated without approval and where
appropriate, licensing by such agencies as the Virginia
Department of Welfare, the Virginia Department of Health,
and other such appropriate local, state and federal agencies
as may have authority in a particular case.
This facility will be licensed by the Virginia Department of
Social Services. A Certificate of Need is not required for this
particular use as it will be licensed as a home for adults and no
federal funds are involved with the project.
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors find, in accordance with
Section 31.2.4.1, the proposed use: (1) will not be of substantial
detriment to adjacent properties; and, (2) will not change the
character of the district, and, therefore, the use will be in
harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, the
by-right uses wzthin the district, the Supplementary Regulations,
and with the public health, safety, and general welfare. Staff
opinion is this special use permit is consistent with Sections
5.1.13 and 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive
Plan. Therefore, staff recommends approval subject to the follow-
lng conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
Use is limited to 80 beds in the facility;
Site shall be developed in general accord with plan prepared
by Raymond E. Gaines, Architect dated March 28, 1992 and
revised April 29, 1992."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 12,
1992, unanimously recommended approval of the petition subject to the condi-
tions recommended by staff.
Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Greg Gaines, the architect for the Winter Haven facility, commented
that this applicatio~ was made under Section 5.1.13 of the Zoning Ordinance,
but this facility is not going to be a nursing home. He explained that it
will be a licensed home for adults, which is more closely equivalent to a rest
home, but it falls under the same category of the Zoning Ordinance as a
nursing home. He said the staff had explained to him that the word, "nursing
home" was used on the agenda more for the purpose of simplicity rather than a
technicality. He wanted to be certain that the permit is issued for a home
for adults, because this is how the home will be licensed by the State Social
Services Department.
Mr. Marshall stated that the facility will not be giving skilled care.
He asked if all of the patients will be ambulatory. Mr. Gaines replied, "no."
He said there will be some non-ambulatory residents as defined under State
law. He added that the owner anticipates having a licensed practical nurse on
June 17, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
M.B. 41, Pg. 280
staff. He said that, primarily, the distinction is more of an assisted care
rather than a skilled nursing home type of situation.
Mrs. Humphris called attention to Attachment C of the supervisors,
materials, which was a project summary for the Winter Haven Home for Adults.
She noted that the summary was prepared by Mr. Gaines and Mr. Gibb. She
pointed out that this summary stated that the exteriors would be primarily of
brick with earth tones used for roofing and trim. She inquired if Mr. Gaines
would object to this being a condition of the special use permit, so that
there would not be a stark white roof, etc., in the view from Monticello.
Mr. Gaines responded that representatives of the Partnership have
privately assured Dr. Jordan, of Monticello, that this brick building and
earth tone roofing and trim is exactly the intent. He said he had visited
Monticello, and walked out on the terrace with a pair of binoculars, and
discovered an existing stand of evergreens along the edge. of this piece of
property. He stated that, afterwards, it was elected to build a retaining
wall so than the fill slope that ms necessitated by this project, would be far
enough away from the existing screen of evergreens for it to be preserved. He
added that, as best as he can determine, he does not think the building will
be seen from Monticello.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the evergreens are cedar trees. Mr. Gaines
replied that, for the most part, the trees are Virginia pines.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if Mr. Gaines would object to a condition confin-
ing the building to brick and earth tone colors. Mr. Gaines answered that he
did not think so. He said that one of the owners is a brick layer.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he would rather have the brick and earth tone
colors of the building as a primary condition. He said the screening with the
evergreen trees is extra assurance, however, if the trees should die, then the
colors will non be offensive. Mr. Gaines said he did not think that represen-
tatives of the Partnership would object to the added condition.
No one else wanted to speak to this application, so Mr. Bowerman closed
the public hearing.
Mr. Martin offered motion to approve SP-92-25, subject to the two
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, and a third condition that
the exterior will be primarily of brick with earth tones used for the roof and
trim. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion.
Mr. Bain pointed oun that Mr. Gaines wanted to make sure it was clearly
understood that this will actually be a home for adults. He asked Mr.
Cilimberg for clarification between a home for adults and a nursing home. Mr.
Cilimberg replied that the Zoning Administrator, in reviewing the application,
considered that the home for adults was close enough to a nursing home
definition to consider it under that application. He said the Zoning Adminis-
trator is aware of the actual use as described in the application. He went on
to say that the application is for a home for adults, as the applicant has
stated, but it fits under the nursing home definition in the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. St. John stated that if the home for adults had not been considered
under the nursing home section, the ordinance would have had to be amended.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. Use is limited to 80 beds in the facility;
2. Site shall be developed in general accord with plan prepared by
Raymond E. Gaines, Architect dated March 28 1992 and revised
April 29, 1992. '
The exteriors of the buildings will be primarily of brick with
earth tones used for roofing and trim.
Agenda Item No'. 12. Request from Jaycees for funding of Fireworks
Display on Fourth of July.
Mr. Tucker stated that on June 10, 1992, Ms. Mary Loose, President of
the Charlottesville/Albemarle Jaycees, made a presentation requesting $1250
from the CoUnty to help fund the annual July 4th fireworks celebration. He
said that she intended to make a similar request to the City of Charlottes-
ville. He noted that Ms. Loose indicates that, in prior years, the business
community had been able to fully fund the fireworks display. He said Ms.
Loose explained, however, that due to current economic conditions, funds for
these types of community projects have been cut drastically. Mr. Tucker
emphasized than Ms. Loose does not expect that public funding would be
requested in future years. He noted the staff is recommending that, if the
June 17, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
M.B. 41, Pg. 281
Board supports this request, the funds should be committed from the Board's
contingency account, contingent upon the City providing a matching amount.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Tucker has had conversations with the City.
Mr. Tucker replied that he has not had such conversations, and he does not
know if the City has approved this request.
Mrs. Humphris stated that the City has not approved such a request. She
understands that the item was deferred. Mr. Bowerman wondered if City
officials were waiting to see what County officials did. Mrs. Humphris said
that she is unsure why the item was deferred.
Ms. Loose stated that she had spoken to the City Council on Monday, and
the Council asked the staff to study the request. She really believes that
the Council is waiting to see what the supervisors are going to do.
Mr. Bowerman asked if it is the Jaycees' intention, if the economy
improves, to try to continue this as a private function. Ms. Loose responded
it is definitely the Jaycees' intention not to see the supervisors next year
or during later years for this purpose. She said it is the Jaycees' intention
to start working on small projects, such as car washes, etc., so that the
funds will be available next year for the fireworks display.
Mrs. Humphris asked how many people see the display. She also wondered
what is the escalation-in the cost over the years. Ms. Loose answered that
approximately 6000 people come to see the fireworks on the Fourth of July.
She said it is her understanding that five years ago this same display cost
$850, and it is costing $4000 today.
Mrs. Humphris wondered if the Jaycees would examine the situation with
this project to see if it is worth the effort. Ms. Loose replied that there
was a lot of discussion about this project during the 1992/1993 Jaycees budget
presentation. She said the conversation centered around whether or not the
$4000 fireworks display should be done again, or should other community
projects be considered, instead. She thinks it was the consensus of this
Jaycee Board, and the other Jaycees in the community, that they want to have
this project. She added that the Jaycees now have to make sure they use
different fund raising activities for this project. She stated that, in the
past, the funds from small projects such as parking cars at the fair or
lobster sales would go for distributing holiday food baskets or other pro-
jects. She went on to say that now, there will have to be a project chairman
who will work solely on fund raising for the Fourth of July celebration. She
said, in the past, the Jaycees could begin raising money for the Fourth of
July fireworks display five months ahead of time.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if Ms. Loose thinks the fireworks display is a
worthwhile project to the point that the Jaycees intend to commit additional
resources in the future. Ms. Loose answered, "absolutely.,, She added that
this fireworks display is not something that she, nor the Jaycee Board, see as
a function of government. She believes this celebration should be a function
of a civic organization for the community.
Mr. Bain stated that the Jaycees have indicaued they have already
borrowed the funds for this year. He thinks if this commitment has been made,
then the Jaycees should use the money to repay what has been borrowed for this
year, rather than to have the County fund the celebration, even on a one time
basis. He is not inclined to support this request.
Mr. Perkins commented that he does not intend to support the request,
either. He said there are other organizations, specifically the Crozet Fire
Department, which also have fireworks on the Fourth of July. He added that if
funds are given to one civic group, then the supervisors will be getting
requests from others, not only for fireworks, but for other things. He said
he would give the Jaycees a donation for the fireworks, and he believes that
the people who watch the fireworks display should be the ones paying for it.
He stated that the Jaycees should request donations from the citizens of
Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville. Ms. Loose agreed. She
noted that the Jaycees have been requesting donations for five months. She
added that the Board of Supervisors is one group that had not been contacted
before for funding.
Mrs. Humphris remarked that she has had mixed feelings about this
matter, but she agrees with Mr. Bain and Mr. Perkins. She noted that the
Jaycees are having a hardship because of the currenn businesses, economic
situation. She stated that the supervisors are having a hardship because
there are people in the County who do not have food and homes. She said that
she gets joy from fireworks, even if they are only on television. She feels,
however, that because of the economic condition of the taxpayers, she would
not be comfortable committing the taxpayers' dollars that they contribute for
government to a fireworks display.
Mr. Bowerman stated that it is clear that a motion will not pass to
approve this request. He added that the Jaycees' request for funding for the
Fourth of July fireworks display is denied. Ms. Loose ghanked the supervisors
for listening to her request.
Agenda Item No. 13. Crozet Crossing Recapture Plan.
presented the following staff report:
Mr. Tucker
"Attached (on file) is the Charlottesville Housing Foundation's
proposed recapture plan for the Crozet Crossing housing project.
County approval of the recapture program is required by Virginia
Housing Development Authority (VHDA) and Virginia Housing Partner-
ship prior to .the release of funds committed to the Crozet Cross-
ing project.
The first page of this Plan is a summary of the contents of the
report. Sections I through IV provide the purpose, intent and
overall guidelines which define the recapture plan. Staff would
recommend you focus on the concept of the plan outlined in these
sections. The remaining sections provide more detail and justifi-
cation for the components of the plan.
Discussion:
The following are key points of the proposed plan that you should
be aware of:
The purpose of the recapture plan is to establish the terms
under which the buyers in Crozet Crossing will repay the
money invested in Crozet Crossing by the County (CDBG and
County matching funds) and the Charlottesville Housing
Foundation (CHF) totalling up to $813,000.
The funds recaptured by CHF and the Counny are recommended
to go into a proposed Housmng Trust Fund. This money will
be reused in future programs to assist County citizens in
obtaining decent and affordable housing. Specific programs
to be funded from this Trust Fund have not been determined
or developed but possibilities include a program to assist
in down payments and/or closing costs for homes on the
market, a homeownership education/training program, or
future construction of affordable housing.
The purchasers will ultimately pay all of the "hard cosns"
of their home as well as a portion of the cost of borrowing
the funds that are deferred. The homes are affordable
because of low interest loans, the opportunity to borrow
down payment and closing costs, and the opportunity to
obtain loans with deferred payments, and the low cost of
land. Also donated architectural and professional develop-
ment services reduce the cost of homes which benefit pur-
chasers.
The conditions and requirements of this program will be
fully explained to purchasers. This occurs at three points.
Financial commitments are explained during the homeownership
education classes for applicants for Crozet Crossing (the
Home Buyers Seminars). The financing for each purchaser is
completely spelled out with the development of the sales
contract. The terms of the deeds of trust will also be
explained by the closing attorney at settlement.
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board approve this plan. It
permits the public and non-profit monies to be recaptured and
recycled into other programs that promote affordable housing
projects. The implementation of the plan and the establishment of
the trust fund will require additional planning. The recapture
plan establishes the concepts and parameters for recapturing the
public and non-profit funds invested. The 'mechanics, of its
implementation will be developed after Board approval. However,
staff feels that the plan as proposed can be implemented..,
Mr. Tucker stated that Forrest Kerns, of CHF, and John Shepherd, of CHF
and A HIP, are present at this meeting, if supervisors have specific questions.
He reiterated that the supervisors, tonight, need only to inform the staff as
to whether or not they like the concept and whether it makes sense to move
forward on this plan.
Mr. Perkins stated that he likes the plan and thinks it is something
that should be pursued. Mr. Bain concurred with Mr. Perkins' statement. He
stated that he has not looked at the specifics of the plan, but the approach
and rationale makes a lot of sense.
Mrs. Humphris agreed. She commented that the deeper she got into the
plan, the more she appreciated Mr. Tucker's suggestion for the Board to focus
on the concept and not the details.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that he would appreciate a staff summary from Mr.
Tucker's office. He said Mr. Tucker has gotten the Board used to this type of
format for matters such as this. He said Mr. Tucker's summaries are very
understandable, and the Board can see what the staff's recommendations and
June 17, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M,B Pg. 283
(Page 29 ) '
conclusions are. He added that these summaries are very succinct and worth-
while.
Mr. Martin stated that he agrees with the plan. He thinks the County
has done a good job in making a distinction between helping someone, which in
many cases turns out to be a crutch, and helping someone who is trying to help
themselves. He said this plan is designed in such a way as to try to help
people who are tryin~ to help themselves. Mr. Tucker replied that these
people will also help the County.
Mr. Bain described a situation whereby there could be a County/
public/private partnership in a mobile home park in the urban area. He said
the people who have mobile homes could buy the lot, so they have an investment
that they can pass on to someone else. He asked Mr. Tucker to follow up on
this idea, because the same concept that is being used for Crozet Crossing
could be developed for this type of situation.. ·
Agenda Item No. 14. Meadow Creek Parkway Update.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that a couple of years ago the County entered into
a contract with a consulting corporation to study alignments for the Meadow
Creek Parkway and the Timberwood Parkway north of Rio Road in the urban area.
He added that the Meadow Creek Parkway alignment will cross the South Fork of
the Rivanna River and will go west into Hollymead and on to Route 29. He said
the Timberwood Parkway alignment would go north from that point through
Hollymead to Proffitt Road. He stated the County staff made the consultant
aware of the fact that, in Forest Lakes, a portion of what was going to be the
Timberwood Parkway from Proffitt Road down to Meadow Creek Parkway had been
constructed with the Forest Lakes development. He pointed this area out on
the map.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the road from Proffitt Road to the proposed Meadow
Creek Parkway is two lanes. Mr. Cilimberg responded that this road is two
lanes at this time.· He said, however, the design for the road is for four
lanes, and the right-of-way has been reserved for four lanes. He went on to
say that the consultant will be present one week from today, at the citizens'
informational meeting at Woodbrook School, from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., to
describe the series of alternatives which the consultant sees as realistic for
Meadow Creek Parkway and Timberwood Parkway. He pointed out the different
alignments on the map and described their routes. He said a combination of
these alignments could be the ultimate alignment for the road. He said a
handout will be provided at the citizens' meeting, which is a draft, and is
not final information. He added that the draft details some of the effects of
the various alignments. He then described various possibilities for the
Timberwood Parkway. He said the consultant looked at this Parkway in two
ways. He stated that one alignment shows connections that could be made for
Hollymead and Forest Lakes, exclusively, with no connection to Proffitt Road.
He commented that the other alignment shows a connection that could be made to
Proffitt Road.
Mr. Bain asked about the terrain involved with the T-4 alignment. Mr.
Cilimberg replied that the T-4 alignment swings east of all of the developed
area of Forest Lakes. He said a section of roadway would cut through a
portion of Forest Lakes at a certain point, but it would not use the internal
road. He went on to say that if this is the alignment chosen, there will be
the need to connect Forest Lakes and Hollymead. He said the alternatives for
doing so, are through the existing Timberwood Parkway. He reiterated that
these are all alternatives and nothing has been settled, at this point. He
said there was a presentation of this same information yesterday for the
supervisors and commissioners whose districts these roads pass through,
because the staff wanted them to be aware of what their constituents would be
seeing at the citizens' meeting next week. He stated that one thing which has
occurred to the staff is whether or not other alternatives need to be evaluat-
ed. He said the alignment east of Route 29 is fairly settled. He noted,
however, that money is available in the CIP to study Meadow Creek Parkway west
of Route 29. He said there could be a second citizens' meeting to review
these findings. He noted that, ultimately, all of this will be left up to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to determine among the
alternatives what is the best thing to do. He said, too, that it will have to
be decided as to whether or not the County officials may be willing to commit
money to build roads in the future, or will they look to developers or VDoT to
build these roads.
Mr. Bain asked if there would be a grade separated interchange at Rio
Road. Mr. Cilimberg answered that there are concepts for a Rio Road inter-
change. He stated the consultants have been asked to look specifically at
this concept, in the event it is decided that this is an interim improvement
with an ultimate interchange to follow. He said there are two interchange
designs for the CATEC and Dunlora area of Rio Road.
Mr. Bowerman agreed with Mr. Cilimberg's previous comments that during
the meeting on this matter yesterday, it was obvious that west of Route 29
still needed to be studied. Mr. Bain concurred. Mr. Cilimberg stated that
the staff has been discussing what is going to happen in the northern area.
He noted that there will be a Comprehensive Plan amendment request for an area
of Hollymead. He said if a connection is made at Proffitt Road, and if that
road ultimately serves this traffic, it will make a difference as to whether
June 17, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg.284
(Page 30)
or not the T-3 or T-'4 alignment is used. Mr. Bain responded that he thinks
the T-4 alignment would have to be used in that area.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the T-4 alignment would also have to be
available, if the Hollymead residential area is expanded to the east at some
point in the future. '
Mr. Bain remarked that he wants as few connections to the road as
possible. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that making some of these connections
will be very expensive. Mr. Bain commented that this has to be done, and it
has to be done right. He said that piecemeal projects do not work.
Mr. Marshall asked if the supervisors are talking about a limited access
road. Mr. Bain responded that it will be a limited access road. He noted
that it would not be an interstate road. Mr. Cilimberg explained the consul-
tant was told that Meadow Creek Parkway would be limited or controlled access
He then pointed out that Timberwood Parkway would be a major collector type of
road. He said in Forest Lakes, as Timberwood Parkway is designed, there are
intersections which serve individual residential areas. He said the T-4
alignment would be considered as a collector road or an arterial road with
initially very little access to it. '
Mr. Bain next asked what type of interchange is planned for the areas
which are shown as brown and green on the map. Mr. Cilimberg replied the
consultants have not designed an interchange for the area mentioned by Mr.
Bain. He added that the only interchange ~hich has been designed is the one
near Dunlora. He stated the area to which Mr. Bain referred would be whatever
the County or VDoT c'ould afford to build.
Mr. Bowerman called attention to the B-1 and B-2 alignments on the map.
He said that Meadow Creek Parkway will be visible to hundreds of homes with
the B-1 alignment, but there are some homes that B-2 directly impacts, which
B-1 does not. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the public will be asked to provide
their thoughts on what combination of aluernatives they feel would be best.
In addition to this type of information, Mr. Cilimberg said there will be
traffic data provided, at the citizens' meeting.
Mr. Bain asked if there were costs of the alignments available.
Cilimberg responded that the consultants have not given the staff cost
estimates.
Mr.
Agenda Item No. 15. Appropriation: Gypsy Moth 1991/92 Grant.
Mr. Tucker stated that when the funds were appropriated last year for
the County budget, the Gypsy Moth expenditure was funded out of the General
Fund. He said there is a separate fund for this expenditure, and it needs to
be shifted to the Gypsy Moth Fund. He recommended the Board approve Appropri-
ation 910056 in the amount of $129,831.15.
Mrs. Humphris moved adoption of the following resolution of appropri-
ation (Form # 910056) for the Gypsy Moth Fund. Mr. Bain seconded the motion.
FISCAL YEAR: 1991-92
NUMBER: 91005'6
FUND: GYPSY MOTH
PURPOSE: APPROPRIATION OF GYPSY MOTH FY 1991-92 BUDGET
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
1123034010110000 SALARIES-REGULAR
1123034010130000 PART-TIME SALARIES
1123034010160900 SALARY RESERVE-BONUS
1123034010210000 FICA
1123034010221000 VRS
1123034010231000 HEALTH INS
1123034010232000 DENTAL INS
1123034010241000 VRS-LIFE INS
1123034010270000 WORKER'S COMP INS
1123034010332100 MAINT CONTRACT-EQUIPMENT
1123034010390000 OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES
1123034010520100 POSTAL SERVICES
1123034010520300 TELECOMMUNICATIONS
1123034010550100 TRAVEL-MILEAGE
1123034010550110 TRAVEL-POOL CAR
1123034010550400 TRAXrEL-EDUCATION
1123034010580100 DUES & MEMBERSHIPS
1123034010600100 OFFICE SUPPLIES
1123034010601400 OTHER OPERATING SUPPLIES
1123034010601700 COPY SUPPLIES
1123034010800710 ADP SOFTWARE
11230340103600'00 ADVERTISING
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$58,754.15
31,800.00
2,788.00
6,913.00
4,925.00
2,052.00
120.00
427.00
1,507.00
50.00
50.00
1,370.00
500.00
4,000.00
1,020.00
960.00
170.00
700.00
10,150.00
400.00
775.00
400.00
$129,831.15
June 17, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
M.B. 41, Pg. 285
AYES:
NAYS:
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2123033000330001 GRANT REVENUE-FEDER3IL $117,152.00
2123051000512004 TRANSFER FROM GEN'L FUND 9,695.00
2123051000510100 APPROPRIATION FROM FUND BALANCE .2,984.15
TOTAL $129,831.15
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vo~e:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris Mr. Marshall and Mr
Martin. ' ·
None.
Agenda Item No. 16. Discussion: Draft letter to Westvaco.
The following draft letter was presented:
"It has come to the attention of the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors that there is some consideration being given to moving
the Westvaco Ivy Wood Yard to the Louisa-Fluvanna area. Obvious-
ly, the loss o'f jobs and related issues give us great concern.
From a statistical standpoint, we are advised that the Ivy Wood
Yard contributes upwards of $750,000 per year to our local econo-
my. It employs a number of local residents and the yard alone
contributes $2,300 per year in local taxes to help support the
operations of county government. These are factual components
which are easily measured as to Westvaco's impact in this communi-
ty.
Although more difficult to measure, the intangibles play an equal
or greater role in your contribution to this county than the
statistics. The service which your organization offers in provid-
ing an outlet for pulpwood is critical. In a developing county,
this opportunity plays an important role in serving as an alterna-
tive to landfill disposal or open burning for site clearing
activities. Additionally, small logging operations cannot be
sustained without a market in close proximity to their activity.
The cost of hauling any significant distance would be devastating
to these small businessmen.
In terms of future markets, it is important to note that there are
approximately 293,436 acres of forest land in Albemarle County as
well as 65,319 acres in Agricultural/Forestal Districts. As you
know, the Agricultural/Forestal District concept provides a degree
of protection against development pressures, thus assuring the
preservation of this resource. Additionally, Department of
Forestry records indicate that there were 123,000 cords of pulp-
wood removed in Albemarle County last year and almost twice that
number replaced. The future for pulpwood in this area appears to
be quite positive.
In short, Westvaco ms an ounstanding corporate citizen in Albe-
marle County which in many ways helps to contribute to our fine
quality of life. Any decision to move from our area would be a
significant loss which the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
would like to see reconsidered. If the Board or any of our staff
can be of any assistance in identifying and addressing those
issues which might make it possible to keep your company in our
counEy, please do not hesitate to contact me."
Mr. Bowerman informed the Board members that another draft letter to
Westvaco had been distributed to them previously. Mr. Tucker explained that
the fourth paragraph at the bottom of the first page was added after the first
letter was given to Board members. He said this was added because Mr. Perkins
called the County Executive's office with some information which related to
the agricultural/forestal districts. He wenE on to say that this is the only
change the staff has made from the first draft.
Mr. Bowerman commented that he had trouble with the words, "related
issues," in the first paragraph. He thinks that the letter reads just as well
without it.
Mrs. Humphris 'stated than a simple way of changing the first paragraph
of the letter would be to add the word, "both," so that the sentence would
state that, "Obviously, both the loss of jobs and related issues. ..,, She also
noted that the verb in the same sentence should be "give," instead of
"gives.,, '
Mr. Bowerman called attention to the next to the last sentence in the
third paragraph. He asked if the words, "logging operators," should be used
instead of, "logging operations.,,
Mr. St. John thought the words, "logging operations,,, should be left as
it is written.
June(Page17,32) 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) 41, Pg. 286
Mr. Bowerman next asked that the word, "tremendous,,, in the last
paragraph be changed to, "significant.,.
Mr. Perkins requested that the letter be sent to the Wood Department
Manger and Mill Manager of Westvaco.
Mr. Tucker indicated that the letter would be sent to the person to
which Mr. Perkins referred.
At this time, Mr. Perkins moved that the Board authorize the Chairman to
sign the letter to Westvaco, which voices the supervisors' concerns about the
moving of the Westvaco Ivy Wood Yard to the Louisa-Fluvarina area. Mr Bain
seconded the motion. '
AYES:
NAYS:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris Mr. Marshall and Mr
Martin. ' ·
None.
Agenda Item Do. 17. Proclamation re: Celebration of Samuel Miller's
200th Birthday.
Mr. Bain stated that the staff has developed a resolution proclaiming
the 200th anniversary of the birth of Samuel Miller. He said there will be a
Samuel Miller Day on June 30, 1992. In reading the draft proclamation, he
then called attention to the next to the last paragraph, which begins with the
word, "Whereas." He asked that the word, "into," in that paragraph, be changed
to, "unto."
At this time Mr. Bain moved adoption of the Proclamation declaring June
30, 1992 as Samuel Miller Day, and changing the word, "into" in the next to
the last paragraph to "unto." Mr. Bain asked that the Proclamation be
forwarded to the Headmaster of Miller School. Mr. Martin seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris Mr. Marshall and Mr
Martin. ' ·
NAYS: None.
WHEREAS, Samuel Miller was born on June 30, 192, in a small
cabin high in the Ragged Mountains near Batesville; and
WHEREAS, although born of humble means, Mr. Miller obtained
an education and obtained considerable wealth; and
WHEREAS, he sought to break out of his limited environment
and improve the lo~ of the poor children in Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, upon his death, Mr. Miller left part of his estate
to be used for "the founding, establishment and perpetual support
of a School on the Manual Labor Principle to be superintended by a
competent teacher or teachers, wherein, at all times, there shall
be fed, clothed and instructed in all the branches of a good,
plain, sound English education, wholly free of expense to the
pupils, as many poor orphan children and other children whose
parents shall be unable to educate them"; and
WHEREAS, this generous and benevolent bequest effectuated
the educational experience which expanded and embraced thousands
of students from all walks of life and which continues even unto
this day;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of County
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that June 30, 1992, is
proclaimed to ~he SAMUEL MILLER DAY in celebration of the 200th
Anniversary of his birth.
Not Docketed: Mr. Marshall informed the Board that he read the portion
of the May 20, 1992 minutes, which were assigned to him, and found them to be
mn order. He then moved that the Board approve the May 20 minutes, as they
are written.
Mr. Martin stated that he read the May 20, 1992 minutes, Pages One
through Eight, and found them to be correct. He seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris Mr Marshall and Mr
Martin. ' ' ·
NAYS: None.
June 17, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B.41, Pg.287
(Page 33)
Agenda Item No. 18. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOkRD.
Mr. Tucker stated that the County is ready to proceed with the Berkmar
Drive extension project begznning on June 19, 1992. He said the County may
have to invoke a taking proceeding against two property owners, and he
requested this Boar~ authorize Mr. St. John to do this, if necessary. He is
hoping this issue will be resolved by June 19th, however.
Mr. Bain asked if this procedure would need a formal motion. Mr. St.
John responded that he is going to hand the clerk a copy of a document which
will describe the tax map parcels. He said one of these parcels is owned by
John T. Green, and the other parcel is owned by Sally Green. Mr. St. John
added that he needs a resolution authorizing the County Attorney to initiate
eminent domain proceedings. He needs to initiate a "quick take" condemnation
proceeding on these parcels, if an agreement has not been reached between
these owners and the County Engineer by June 19, 1992.
Mr. Bain moved approval of the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the County Attorney is hereby authorized to
initiate a "quick take" condemnation proceeding on the followmng
described properties if the appropriate deeds have not been
acquired by June 19, 1992
A. Tax Map 45, Parcel 100A, Owner, John T. Green
B. Tax Map 45, Parcel 100B, Sally Green
Mrs. Humphris seconded the foregoing motion. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin.
NAYS: None.
Mr. St. John informed the Board that the value of these parcels has been
estimated. He said that by initiating a "quick take" condemnation, it means
the County gets title before the price has ever been ascertained. He added
that the County officials will not be able to stop the condemnation when the
price is known, as they could if it were not a "quick take" procedure. He went
on to say, however, that the County Engineer feels strongly the price will not
be any more than the maximum estimate.
Mr. Bain asked about the contract przce of the project. Mr. Tucker
responded that the contract price is good, and some of the savings can be used
for another project. He said he would be coming to the supervisors in July to
ask for use of the funds that were saved, probably for the Broadus Wood
project. He stated that the Commission required a left turn lane on the
access road for the Broadus Wood project, but it was not part of the original
request in the CIP.
Mr. Bowerman asked, with this Board's concurrence, that the staff
investigate the purchase of a fair grounds. He asked that the staff try,
first, to find a location. He explained that the fair committee puts approxi-
mately $30,000 into the current site every year that is lost on tent rental
and lighting. He added that if a permanent site could be found, those funds
could go into the construction of permanent facilities which could be used by
all County citizens. He noted that in the Comprehensive Plan, there is
reference to a farmers' market which is something that would further agricul-
tural and forestal uses in the rural area. He would like to pursue the matter
of locating a place to be purchased for such activities. He suggested the
staff should have a year to consider the matter before the next CIP, in terms
of places that are accessible, and where transportation and utilities are
available. Mr. Bowerman commented that he would not ask that the staff be
restricted in its investigation of potential sites.
Mr. Bain mentioned that a few years ago there was a discussion about
Walnut Creek Park being used for this purpose. He said there is a lot of open
land there. He believes the staff should consider this site for the fair
grounds. Mr. Bowerman concurred. He said the staff could evaluate the Walnut
Creek Park site with the other sites. Mr. Bain stated that there were some
road problems pointed out during the discussion relating to Walnut Creek but
he said that these problems could be addressed. Mr. Bowerman also mentioned
that the staff could work with the Albemarle County Fair Board.
Agenda Item No. 19. Adjourn. At 10:10 p.m., Mr. Bowerman adjourned
the meeting until July 1, 1992, at 9:00 a.m.
Chairman