The URL can be used to link to this page

1991-08-0755 August 7, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August 7, 1991, at 7:00 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bowerman, F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mr. Peter T. Way. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and Chief of Planning, Ronald S. Keeler. '~2-~,~AgAnda'~-Item'No~l,; 1/T~he meeting.was called to order at 7:00 P,M. by the Chal~,rman, Mr. Bowie. ~: 'A§enda~ItemNo-~~ 2.~~ Pledge 'of Allegiance. ~ Agenda Item No, 3~'~M~ment of-Silence~ Agenda Item NO.. 4. Other Matters Not' Listed on the Agenda 'fromthe Public. Mr. Bowie acknowledged that people were present to address Item 5.3a on the consentAgenda~(Letter'datedAugust 1,~1991, from F~-R. Bowie,~Ch~irm~n, addressed ~to'Secretary John G. Milliken, Chairman; C0mmonwealtk Tz'ansportation Board, re: Sequence of the Route 29 Corridor Improvements). Since this is an item~fOr~p~o~at~Lon the. consent~'ag_enda, he asked if~there~'wereany~ob~ec~ions ~to~'alt~win~ 15~minutes for public comments. Board members expressed, no objeqt%ons and the following persons addressed the Board: Sherry Buttrick, Peggy Bradyand'DavidI~alergis. F, ollowing ~comments by ~oard'members.,.motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, SDgpndDd.~,~y.Mr. Bain, to pull Items 5.3a, 5.8 and 5.9 from the Consent Agenda for discuSsion at a .later date. Roll was called and the motion failed by the fotlowimg~reco=ded vote: _ AYES: Mri Bain and Mrs. Humphris. NAYSr.Messrs. Bowerm~n, Bowie, Perkins and Way. ~ .... ~ollowing more'discussion, motion wasoffered by. Mr.'BoWerman;.secon~ded~~ byMr. Way, to,approve~ Ifem 5..3a-on the Consent~kgenda~'~ Roll wascatled ang~ the.~m0tion"c~rried%by-the following-recorda~ vote: ...... ~ ...... .~ .... AY~S:~Messrs. BOwerman,:Bowie, Perkins and' Way', ..... ..,~:~. NAYS',: Mr:,.~Bain and Mrs. Humphris. (~k-~omp~lete-transcript ~on thisdiscussion was prepared~and is,on~'~fiIe~in the Clerk, s office.) ~-~' ~ ........ Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded~ by.Mr. Bowerman,.t~.approve Items 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 on the Consent Agenda,~to~ discussItems '5.8~and,5~9~on AugUst 14 ~and to accept ~the remaining itmmm on the consent agenda as information. Roll was calledand the motion ~YES:?Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie,~Mrs.~HUmphris, Mr.-Perkins.and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Itenn5.1. Ratify County Executive's signature on a Right-ofuWay Agree- ment-Corporate~.~nderground Easement ,for Virglinia~ :Power~,~ :~y ~the above-re~c, or~d~d ! vo~e~i.the-Board' ratified the County Executive s signature on a right-of-way~- a~Fp.e~.~ent for a corporate underground easement, dated July 19, 1991, between the County of Albmmmrle and Virginia Power for property owned by the County of Albemarle locate~on McIntire~Road-on which~theAlbemarie~C.ountyOff~ce Building is located~ .... August 7, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) 5'6 Item 5.2. Request to have roads in Mill Creek Section 4, taken into the. State System of Secondary Highways. (In a letter dated July 29, 1991, Mr. Hunter Craig, Craig Builders, requested the Board to adopt a resolution to accept Gristmill Drive, Flagstone Terrace, Alpine Court and Timberbranch Court into the State System of Secondary Highways. By the above recorded, vote, the Board adopted the following resolution:) BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that pursuant to Virginia Code Section 33.1-229, the Virgi- nia Department of Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following roads in ~'~Mill Creek~ Section~4:- Gristmill Drive: Beginning at Station 21+55~ a point com~n to the centerline .of ~ State Route 1157 (Gristmill Drive) at theend of state mainte- nance, thence in-a southwesterly.direction 1405.21 feet to Stati0n35+60.21,.the end,of the cul-de-sac. Alpine Court: - ~ Beginning at Station 10+27, a point common to the centerline of Alpine Court andthe edge of pavement of Gristmitl~Drive,~thence in a southeasterly direction 158 feet. to Station ll+85,'the-end ~ofthe culrde-sac. Flagstone Terrace: Beginning: at'Station 10+102 a point common to the centerline of Flagstone Terrace and the edge of pavement of Gristmill Drive, thence'ina~northwesterly direction 431.7 feet to Station 14+41,70, the~dgeof pavement of~Station'I0+00on Timberbranch Court. ~ . '-~ .. Timberbr'anch Court: Beginning at Station 5+01.97, the edge of the cul-de-sac, thence~ in a northeasterly direction 1056.67 feet to Station 15+58.64, the end of the other cul-de-sac-on-Timberbranch Court. BE IT'FURTHER RESOLVEDthat.theVirginia Department of Transr' portation be and'is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right- of-way and'drainage easements along these'requested additions as recorded by platsin':the Office of the Clerk of the CirCuit Court of Albemarle County ink-'Deed Book 1042, pages 413 - 42.2; Deed Book 1074, page 480; Deed Book 1098, page 309; Deed'Book 1160, page. 490; and.Deed Book .1116, page 222': - Item 5,3. Approval of Moving Expenses Richard E. Huff, II. By the above recorded, vote~ theBp~rd approved moving expenses for Mr. Richard Huff, II, Deputy County Executive, in the amount of $1536.86 to come fromthe Board's contingency'.account. Item 5.3a. "Letter dated August:l, 1991,-from F.R. Bowie~' Chairman, addressed~to SecretaryJohn~ G~ Milliken, Chairman,.~Commonwealth Transportation Board, re: Sequence of ~the Route 29 Corridor.Improvements~~ (The?Board's discussion~on the following letter'and enclosures are-set out in a-transcript on file in the Clerk~s~office:) ~ August~l, 1991 The Honorable John G. Milliken Secretary of Transportation Office-of theGovernor Richmond, VA~ 23219 ..... Dear Secretary Milliken: 0n behalf of the Albemmrle~County Board-of Supervisors, I want to ~thank~you for~meeting with!Mr. Bowermmn~>'Mr~Tucker and me-on~Wednes~ . day. The purpose~of~our~meeting was~to..sharewith you ourthoughts,.on August 7, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) 57 how we can mutually and amicably resolve some of the transportation issues in our area. We felt the meeting was extremely productive. My letter of June 25, 1991, stated that the Board of Supervisors was inclined to accept the designation of Alternative 10 if we could obtain a positive commitment to carry out the CATS Plan, Enclosure I to this letter provides a brief history of the reasons for our concern as we discussed in our meeting. We feel the sequence of events since the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) meeting at Natural Bridge in October, 1990, clearly shows a change in VDoT priorities. There is a shift from completing CATS to building the Bypass~ While we recognize that local and state transportation interests priorities differ at times,~it is our feeling that'~.both, i~tra-state needs'and local~needs~can~be met through a~.cooperative long-range implementation plan, outlined on Enclosure III. The purpose of this letter is to thank you, Mrs. Kinchetoe, Mr'. Pethtel and Mr. Hodge for meeting with us on July 31 and to obtain a firm agreement between the Commonwealth Transportation Board, YDoT and the Gounty that the. sequence of the Route 29 corridor improvements - will-be as'specifically recommmnded bY VDoT and adoptedby theCommon- wealth TranmportationBoard, with the addition of Route 29:-related CATS projects', Sincerely, (SIGNED) F. R. Bowie Chairman ENCLOSURE I If and when aBypass~is constructed, the Sverdrup Study, as acknow-~ ledged~ by VDoT, states that noBypass will'workunless theCATS ptan~ and the Meadowcr~ek Parkway~are built. ~ -~ This'position was stated no less thanthree times~byMr~ Hodge in his presentation to the CTB on October 24, 1990, at' Natural Bridge. Subsequently at Manassas, on November 15, 1990, Mr. Hodge reiterated that no Bypass will work unless CATS is part of the .~ ~ptan. - At this meeting on November 15, 1990, VDoT recommended, and the Commonwealth Transportation Board approved, a specific three- phased plan~for Route 29 corridor improvements as set fOrth in ' - Enclosure II~. · - - Nonetheless, itwas at this same meeting that the ~emphasis apparently began shifting away from th~ CATS, other thanthe widening of Route 29 North. ~ The County is concerned that the Bypass is moving ahead of other CTB approved Phase I recommendations. Recent events have strengthened this:Concern~ First, at Natural Bridge the VDoT position was that CATS was required before any Bypass; Second, at Manassas-the final VDoT position asapproved by-the CTB recognized the-importance of therelevant portions of CATS; Third, there was a shift in focus at Manassas in that Mr. 'Hodge made numerous references~o needing the Bypass~,before 2010,~ becauseCATS~funding is falling short and CATS won'tbe complete for another 30 to 40 years. August 7, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) 58 Subsequent to the Commonwealth Transportation Board approval in November, the following has taken place: First, VDoT is moving ahead on funding hardship right of way in the Alternative 10 corridor; Second, VDoT figures show that the project to widen 250 East to 1-64 came in under projection as did the Route 29 right-of-way planning figures. It appears that these funds were not reallo- catedto any local road project; Third, the City of Charlottesville's funding for the Meadowcreek Parkwayhas been delayed~for three years. In summ~ry, while the Commonwealth Transportation Board approved the phased plan-for-.the~Route 29 corridor per-Enclosure II,~ actions taken to date are the causeforour, serious concern. VDoT actions, as noted above, appear to be supporting the Bypass at the expense of CATS. ENCLOSURE II COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD'S APPROVED ROUTE 29 CORRIDOR RECOMMENDATIONS NOVEMBER 15, 1990 Phase I - Short RangeRecommendations o Construct~Route 29 Base.Case; o Reserve right-of-way for the three interchanges; o Encourage the County and City to restrict furtherdeveiopmentin the right-of-way;~- ...... o .... If necessary, VDoT acquireright-of-way; o Develop-the North Grounds access'facility; o Alternative 10 be approved as the future corridor;. o Refine preliminary plan for Alternative 10; o Restrict access to Alternative 10 to preserve the watershed. Phase II - MediumRange-Recommendations o Build the three g. rade-separated interchanges whenneeded; o Continue to preserve and.'acquire the right-of-way for Alternative 10. Phase ~II '-~ Long Range~ Recommendation o Construct Alternative 10 when traffic one'Route 29 is unacceptable and 'economic conditionspermit. ~ ....... ENCLOSURE III If VDOT commits to' the phasing of projects listed below and assures us of this, the Board of Supervisors of Albmmmrte County may be. inclined. to accept Alternative 10, move to preserve the necessary rights of way and~do the things neCessary'within its power toadvanCe these priori- ties.- Prioritized Phased Projects o ':.Widening of U'~~ S. Rou~e 29.~to-six lanes with continuous right turn'lanes~ fromtheRoute Z50 Bypass to'the South Fork ~fth~ ~ Rivanna-River,~etc; .... Remainderof CTB Phase I recommendation of November 15, 1990; Completion of' Meadowcreek Parkway from the Route 250 Bypass to U. S~ Route 29 North; Construction of grade-separated interchanges at-U. S~ Route 29. ~North and Rio.Road (Routers631), HydraulicRoad (Route-743), and Greenbrier Drive (Route 866). August 7, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) 59 O Remainder of CTB Phase II recommendation of November 15 1990; and ' Construction of Alternative 10 concurrent with remainder of 1985 CATS, if and when needed after completion of the above projects; Item 5.4. Letter dated July 23, 1991, addressed to Mr. F. R. Bowie, from Mr. W. Douglas Armstrong, President, International Institute of Municipal Clerks, announcing that Ms. Lettie E. Neher, Clerk to the Board of Supervi- sors, has been awarded the designation of Certified Municipal Clerk, was received for information. (Mr. Bowie extended the Board's appreciation and achieVement on receiving this designation.) Item 5~5. Copy of letter dated July 16, 199t, fromMr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, to Mrs. Carnice Berti, concerning the speed limit on Route 648, was received as follows: "Your~letter of July 2, 1991, requesting a reduced speed limit' on Route 648 has been forwarded to me by Mr. Fo R. Bowie. Upon receiptof a telephone'request in mid June, I, in turn, requasted~ our Traffic Engineer to review Route 648 for a reduced speed,~timit, I didnot record the nmme of-the partywho made the telephone request and you may have been that party. If so, I apologize~for failing, to record yourname and respond to you. - Based upon his review, the District Traffic Engineer has recommended. that the speed limit on Route 648 be reduced to 35 mph. The Code of Virginia designates the State Transportation Commissioner as ths~-party- with authority to-set spe~d~ iimits inVirginia. The, District Traffic~.~ Engineer'srequesthas gone to him for review, Normally this review takes a month or so. Ifthe Commissioner approves the District Traffic Engineer's. recommendation, we will install the signs for-the reduced speed limit; If his recommendation is rejected, I will so advise you at that time. I recommend you look for signs to be in- stalled aroundmidAugust,of this year. "If they are'not in place at ~ that time, you might contact'my office for an update." -~ .... Item-5.6. Letter~dated~July 22,11991, from Mr. H. W. Mills, Maintenance Manager, Virginia Department of' Transportation, stating that the existing superstructure,over Doyles River (Route 668)'will.be repaired between'August 5 and August'~'16,1991, was received-for information. The bridge willbe closed during that time. ~ ............ Item=5~7. Letter dated~3uty 25~-1991,'from Mr% RayD, Pethtel, Commis- sioner,. Virginia~Department of Transportation, noting thatroads in~ Wynridge and Q~tfield were accepted into the State-Secondary-System of Highways effective July 25, 1991, was received as foltows:~ ~ "As requested~in your resolutions dated May 8, 1991 and June 19, 1991, the following additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle Coun~ty are hereby approved, effective July 25, 1991. ADDITIONS WYNRIDGE Route 1452 (Westfield Road) - From 0.03 mile Northwest Route 1499 to 0.21 mile Northwest Route 1499 OUINTFIELD . ~'~t~Route t551 (QuintfieldDrive) -~From'Route 664 to 0.09 mile~South Route 664 LENGTH 0.18 Mi 0.09 Mi" August 7, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) 60 Item 5.8. Letter dated August 1, 1991, from The Honorable Roderic H. Slayton, Mayor, Town of Orange, concerning uae of Route 15 as an Eastern bypass, either in lieu of the Western bypass around Charlottesville, or as a much needed improvement, was received as follows: "There have been studies and much discussion about the western bypass for 29 around Charlottesville. There has been a request that they bypass that area into the western half of Albemarle. I understand that there was at one time a proposition by the Highway Department to use Route 15 as an Eastern bypass, This bypass would be from 29 at Culpeper to 64 at Zion Crossroads, This would require a ~ -small iimited access bypass around the towns of Orange and Gordons- ~-ville. Both towns are actively encouraging a bypass. I endorse this idea. This bypass/4 lane dual highway would be of great benefit to the Towns of Orange-.and Gordonsville and~the Counties of LouiSa and Orange. This four lane access should also benefit CuLpeper and~ Madison Counties~ If the municipalities of this area were able to bind' and work together on this .idea there is a possibility that we could reach this goal to our mutual benefit; providing a needed four lane-highway for industrial and~ commercial-~ development. I'encourage your consideration of this proposal: Either in lieu of the Western bypass, or as a much needec[ improvement. Thank you for your assistance." - - (The Board requested that this~ item be pulled fOr discussion'under Highway' Matters on August 14. ) Item 5.9. Copy of letter dated July 15, 1991, from Mr.~ H. Bryan Mit- chell, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, to Mr. R~L. Hundley, Environmental Engineer, Virginia Department,'of- Transportation, re: Route 29 Bypass, was received, as follows: "Thank you for-submitting the addendum to the.. Phase~<II architectural survey. We were able ,to complete th~ evaluation of Kernwood~ We concur with the recommendation of your consultant that-this property is not'eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, Therefore, none of the alternatives under consideration will have an effect on Kernwood. We have' reviewed the revised change to Alternative-lO-as it relates to the Schlessinger Farm. We have concluded that the alignment will continue to have an. adverse cf feat. We believe this concludes the evaluations and determinations of effect ,,needed..by VDOT for the selection of a preferred-'~alignment. Please be reminded that we~ still-wish to conduct a comprehensive review of the final choice for an alignmmnt 'before proceeding with consultation." (The Board ~requested that this item be pulled for discussion under Highway Matters~ on, August 14~ Mr~ Bain asked~that-the staff find out~ what the letter means. ) - Item 5.10. Letter dated June 25, 1991, from Mr. Peter Drenan, Race Director, concerning triathton to be,held"on public roads on'September~. 29', 1991, in and near Lake Monticello, was received for information. Item5~ll. MonthlyBond Program Report.of~rbor Cres~Apartments for::the Month"of JUne, 199t,-was received for information~~. ~ ,- Item5.12. Notices from Mr,'H. BryanMitchell, Deputy Director, Depart- ment of Historic Resources,.~stating that the Department~has been'requested to make a preliminary evaluationof~the following properties to de~ermineeligi~. bilityfor'listing on the National Register of Historic Places and the Virgi- nia Landmarks Register: East Belmont Farm.an~ Hatton Grange Farm, was re- ceived for~information. August 7, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) 61 Item 5.13. Notice from Mr. James Christian Hill, National Register Assistant, State Historic Preservation Office, stating that the State Review Board will consider on August 20, 1991, placement of The Rectory and the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District, Albemarle County, on the Virginia Landmmrks Register and nominating it to the National Register of Historic Places, was received for information. Item 5.14. Notice from Ms. Margaret T. Peters, Information Director, Department of Historic Resources, dated July 31, 1991, noting that a public hearing for the SOUTHWEST MOUNTAINS RURAL HISTOILIC DISTRICT will be held on Thursday, Auguat 8, 1991, at 7:30 p.m., at the Albemarle County Office Build, lng, was received.,.for information. (Mr. Bowie commented that he has been asked by the Planning District Commission to present the Board's position on the designation. He asked if Board members are in agreement with him stating that the'Board supports theDistrict. Ali Board members' concUrred?)i, : ..... Item 5.14a~ Memorandum dated August 6, 1991, from Ms~ Mary Joy Scm]m,,'-., Senior planner, addressed to the~Board of Supervisors re:~ Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District, was received as follows: "The purpose of this memo is to explain the current status of the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. A National Register nominationreport has been preparedby local consultants, Land and Community Associates. We' are awaiting a copy or-the report from~the S~ate. A public he, ring by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources is-scheduled-for Thursday, AugustS, 1.991, 7:30 p.m., ~_.Auditorium, County Office Building. On Tuesday, August 20, 1991 the State Review Board~and Historic ResourcesBoardwill consider the inclusion of ~the.district~ on the Virginia. Landmarka Register and, if acceptable, will automatically nominate it to the National Register of Historic Places~maintained by the Departmmnt of the Interior. It is anticipated that the district will be listed on'theNationalRegister .... by OCtober. ~ The boundaries are roughly described on the attached map. It appears that most of theAgricultural/Forestal Districts in the area have been included, as welt as 'both sides,of the. mountain range,-as staff recommended to theState~ An-attempt was-made to-extend the district toinclude the Shadweltsite on the Rivanna River but there area. not any ~eontributing properties between-Route 250/1-64 needed to make a connection." Item 5.15. letter dated July 18, 199!~ from.Ms~Ametia M.. 9atterson, Zoning Administrator,~addressed to Mr. William Gall Pickford,:~ Esq., entitled "Official Determination of Number of~Parcels - Section 1013.1, Tax Map 94, Parcel :21,!' was received fOr information, Item 5.16. letter dated July-29, 1991, from Ms. AmetiaM. Patterson, Zoning Administrator, addressed-to Mr. CarrOll Hensley, entitleR "Official Determination of Numbe~ of Parcels - Section :10.~3.1, Tax. Map 79~'A2,'Block F, Parcel ~7,!".was' received forinformation. - ~Item:5.17,~ Copies of the Minutes of the Planning Commission for July 2, July 16, July 23 and July 30, 1991, were received for information. Item 5,18.~ 1991 Second Quarter BuildingReport as prepared by the Department of Planning andCommunity Development, was received for informa- tion.. (The report indicates thatduring the second quarter of 1991, 160 permits were issued for 160 dwelling units. In addition, 12 permits were issued for mobile hemes in existing parks at an average exchange value of $2500 for a total of $30,000.) -,,~ August 7, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) 62 Item 5.19. Copy of the Albemarle County Service Authority's adopted FY-92 Budget, was received for information. Item 5.20. Copy of "Thomas Jefferson Planning District Solid Waste Management Plan, dated July 1, 1991," was received for information. Item 5.21. Copy of "Comparative Report of Local GoVernment Revenues and Expenditures for the Year Ended June 30, 1990" from the Auditor of Public Accounts, was received for information. ' Item 5.22. Letter dated July 25, 1991, from Mr. Robert J. Walters, Jr., giving a six-month report on activities of the Jefferson Area Board for Aging AdvisOry'Council, was received for information~ ...... Agenda Item No. 6. SP-90-99. Rappahannock Electric Coop. To construct an electrical power substation, & transmission line-on properties between Rt 29 &'Rt'~763~(near PineyMtn) going in an eastern and-south~rn~ direction to the Proffit area. TM21,P12,12A,12D,14C; TM33,P1,2,4,4B,4C,10,12,12E, 20, 21,36; TM46,P33B,33F; TM47,P2,3A. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 23 and July 30, 1991.) ......... .~ Mr. Keeler summarized the following staff report: "This reportis a revision to the report presented to the Plmnning Commission on~Decmmherl8, 1990. At that meeting~ thePlanning Commission requested additional information from the applicant.~ Character of the Area: The area crossed by the transmission line is varied in topography. The line crosses rolling terrain and cleared and woodedareas. The nearest residence to the proposed line1-is~250 feet. The areas crossed are mostly wooded, however, significant- cleared areas are also crossed. Applicant's Proposal: A complete description of the request~is found in AttachmentB (on file). Further description of the line and a response to the concerns of the Planning Commission is included ~in Attachment C'(onfile). ~The need for these improvements is addressed in Attachment D (on file). The new line will be a ll5kV line which Will be served by a new substation near the Better Living Hnmm Center Truss Plant adjacent-to the existing 230kV ~Virginia Power transmission line. These improvements will improveservice in the-Rappahannock Electric and Potomac Edison service areas (Attachment E - on file). Planning and Zoning History: This request'represents 'thesixth~ specia~ use permit by Rappahannock Electric Cooperativefora power substation in this area. Prior-approved permits either expired or were~abandoned"due*-to-the~site location changes.. The existing substa~ tion near General Electric was approved withSP-82-30. This is a 34~5kV substation which will-beupgraded-toll5kV~~ - Comprehensive'Plan: The primary goat-of the,Comprehensive Plan is to 'discourage'rural residential development other thandwellings related to abona-fide agricultural/forestal use'. While this~use is not residential'~development,~'it does~represent development~ which is" generally discourage~. Astated objective o~f'theComprehensive.~Ptan~ is to 'maintain cooperative~plannjng efforts between~the~Countyand othernon-public utilities*which provide essentiai<services~ such as telephone, electric, and natural gas utilities, to ensure the admquate Provision of theses/services to support existing an'd anticipate~ development in-the County~ Private utilities provide~esSentiat .... services to .the~County~ The most important~of-.theseare.-electric~ telephone, and natural gas~services'.~,Theapplicant, s proposal~is intended to'improve electric'service in Albmmmrte County. A stated design Stmndard is 'design public utility corridors to fit thetopography. Corridors shouJxtbe shared by utitities~ when possi? ble. Distribution' lines should~be placed undergrounds' This.~issue: August 7, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) 63 will be discussed later in this report. The applicants have stated that they will 'work with and allow other utilities access to, and use of, the right-of-way provided that REC can be assured that it will be able to operate and maintain its facilities in a safe and efficient manner. REC recognizes that joint use of a right-of-way can minimize environmental impacts and can result in a sharing of maintenance costs.' The applicant states in Attachment C, Page 7, that the route may include provisions for communications. Staff Comment: Currently power is provided to Rappahannock Electric Cooperative's Rivanna, Dunnes and Quinque substations from a 34.5kV subtransmission line emanating from Virginia Power's Hollym~ad substa- tion. Energy~flows in ~this line currently exceed the conductor's rated thermal capacity. The proposed substation and trmnmmission line are the first steps in an effort to increase capacity in the area. The applicant proposes tocomptete a'loop in thefuture that would connect-to ~the llSkV Prattssubstation in Madison County.- Approva~of this request in-'no way implies approval of any future proposals~ The applicant has, revised the application and has revised theplan~in order to addressthe comments the Commission~madeat its~December 18, 1990, meeting. A detailed'response-to those comments is included AttachmentC(on file). The revisedroute will follow the existing rail corridor south of the Rivanna River. Other revisions to the route have 'been made in response to public concerns (Attachments E'and F-on~fite)~ Thisrevised routing may'result in.~the use of taller- towers as'well,as concrete or steel poles~ Inaddition, the~re~ised route may be-~mOrevisible than~the original, route as the line will cross more open land and Will not belocated adjacent to wooded areas~ Summary end, Recommendation:- Staff has reviewed this special use permit for consistencywith the Comprehensive Plan andcriteria-~for issuance of~a special-use permit~(31~2.4~l). Staff~offers the~follow- ing comments: a, The transmission line and~ substation would not be~of detriment to properties; the. character of the,district would not be changed. ~ ~The appl,icant~has~reviewed otherpotential corridor routes~and has chosenthe:proposed alignment so as to reducethe impacton properties. The proposedalignment.results in-one roadcrossing (Route~29) and-t~ts,~crossing of:~the RivannaRiver toga single point.~' The'closest dwelling to the line,woul,dbe'approximately 250 feet away. No listed'historic sites are in the area. '~-.~Distance to'dwellings should minimize~visualimpact~- ~ · The use~would be in'harmony with'the intent~of.-the~Zonin~ Ordi- nance'~and other uses located in the area and with the public health, safetyand welfare. The location of the substations would~be,.adjacent tolexisting . industrial uses (General Electric and Better Living Truss Plant) and will not conflict with those uses. The alignment of the transmissionline crosses' both forested andcteared land~-and would'berespectiveof the existing uses~ Once: established; ~maintenance of the right-of-way becomes aconcern~ Staffwitl.~ recommendthat Rappahannock Electric Cooperative-negotiate other means of maintenance with individual property owners objecting to herbicide'usage. Staffhas reviewed documents including a document prepared'by the VirginialDepartment~of-Health in,order to determine if adverse health effectswill result from the prop°sed power~tine~ iInfOrmation reviewed by~staff indicates that the potential health risks posed by the.power line are, at best, unclear, Theapplicant has included infornnation indicating that the proposed power line would meet the guidelines set by Florida, New Yorkand other stateswhich are theonlylstates.that the Virginia Department of Health has identified as having regulations (Attachment C, page' 5-on file), August 7, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) 6¸4 Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request: The transmission line will cross rural areas. Development in the rural areas is generally discouraged by the Compre- hensive Plan; 2. The use of tall towers and the crossing of significant open areas will increase the visibility of the transmission line. It should be noted that more open space areas, are crossed and taller towers are being used in response to Planning Commission concerns over the original alignment. Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: 1. The proposed line will increase electricity availability in the County which is consistent with the Comprehenaive Plan; 2. The applicantis utilizing the. existing, railcorridor~and has-stated that the transmission corridor may be used for communications. This sharing of corridors is consistent With the Comprehensive Plan; . 3. The distance to dwellings, a minimum of 250 feet, will reduce the potential impact of the corridor, ~ While not listed as a favorable or unfavorable factor staff notes that the potentialrisks are unclear. Staff notes that the applicant has stated that this transmission line will comply with the regulations of other states. Staff opinion is.that this request is consistent withthe Comprehen- sive Plan and Section31.2.4.1 of the ZoningOrdinance and recommends approval sUbje~ to.-the following conditions: .~ RecommendedConditions of Approval: 1. The granting of this permit does not guarantee the availability of electric-power to the applicant and'shall not be'"construed-as approving the mo'dification, construction or'reconstruction 'of any facility not specifically approved-herein; 2'~-~, -The granting of this permit shatt~ not'be deemed to imPair~or~ otherwise affect the rights of the applicant or any-other person concerning the acquisition of any right-of-way or other interest in property for such line or the compensation, to be. paid there- for. Exceptfor an§le.-structures as described in. Attachme~t~G (on file),~.right-of-way width shall not 'exceedl00 feet.; 3. Suspension structures shall he in general accordance with Attach- ~ment G, provided that structures shall not eXceed height or width dimensions described in Attachment G. A maximum height limit ~of 100 feet-shall~apply where height limits shown on the-attachmmnts must be exceeded due totopography; Outside of the right-of-way, the applicant shall have the right to cut danger trees only. A danger tree is defined as .any tree Which, iffelled, would fall within ten feet~of aconductor; Within~--the right-of-way, the applicant'shall preserve vegetation and trees'within fifteenfeet of stream crossingsand public roads to-the maxim,,m extent practicable~allowingfor~the.?~safe operation 'andmaintenance. of the line; ~ o The applicant shall take all reasonablemeasures, to n~inimiz~ the adverse impac~of such"tineon'adjacent~properties, onthe neighborhood and on the COunty, consistent with goo~.engineering practice; ~ ~ _ August 7, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) 65 6. Department of Engineering approval of stream crossings; 7. Staff approval of site plans for substations; Centerline of transmission line shall not be located closer than 250 feet to any dwelling and shall be in accord with the routing indicated in Attachmmnt A; Rappahannock Electric Cooperative will negotiate other means of maintenance with individual property owners objecting to herbicide usage." Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 2, 1991, unanimously recommended approval of SP-90-99 subject to the conditions recom- mende~ by the st~ff~ The public hearing was opened. Representing the applicant was Mr. Bob Yeaman, general counsel for Rappahannock Electric Cooperative. The purpose of this specialuse permit is to construct a substation nearProffitt~and to .run a ll5kV line from Proffitt, north to the General Electric plant area, to serve GE., Badger-Powhetan and other developments in the area. The applicant worked extensively with the staff before and after applying for the special permit. The applicant revised the request in July, 1991, to address concerns~expressed by the Commission and residents. Mr. Yeaman~then described the alignment and properties.which would-be affected.. With the exception of two residences, the transmission line will be more than 500 feet from the centerline of every dwelling; this was a request made by the Commission. Mr. Yeaman said the trmnsmission line is approximately four miles long- covering 22~000 square'~feet. There has not been a comprehensive survey because they need a route in order to know exactly where to survey. The transmission line will entail a 100 foot wide right-ofvway corridor and will be-built with two wood pole H-frame structures at each location. Three conductor wires will'be located on the two poles to carry the current. Additionally, two lighting shield wires will be carried from structure to structure and attached at ~the top of each pole. The average height of these~ poles will be 65 feet abovethe ground. Because the applicant had to ~parti- ally relocate the transmission line, there were som~ topography problems crmmted. In certain, locations, the pole line could be as~high,las 100 feet, butonty 'in order to clear certain hills. All of the ~poles will be wood, - except incertain prOblem topography areas, where the poles will have tobe at an angle. Where there'is an angler they anticipate using either concrete or steel poles. Mr. Yeaman saidthere is a-need for thisline in'the County. The 'area wherethe ll5kV transmission line will serve is presently servedby a34.SkV transmission line..~The demand in this area"of the'County exceeds the capabi- lity of the'current transmissiOn~ line. Specifically, in December, 1989, the lineserving GE and Badger-Powhatan, at times during peak loadsand because of the cold-weather, became overloaded by between 20 and 25percent, which is above'therated ~capacity of the line. Even now the existing load-on .the tine is high. InDecember, 1.989, Rappahannock calted'GEand Badge~-Powbat-~n and asked~themif theywould reduce their loads soas not to area~.~ agroundout or blackout., to allow continued'service to residential and other~customers~--~-The demand for this ~new line is there, now and future growthdemmnds~it even more.. With Board~approval, the~applicant 'hopes to energize the lineby November,~ -- 1992 .... Mr. Yeaman said there is a 52 week lead timeto get transformers for this substation~and to order the material to build the~substation~ The liability ~f-~he~current in that:area is demanded by the citizens and industry of the Coungy~ Hethen explained the process the applicant 'used to site the trans- mission line. Theapplicant has: -used prudent engineering practices, consi- dered the environment, economic-aspects, the topography of the a~ea, roads~ the'Rivanna River, concerns expressed by the staff~ stayed~away from'the Route 29 corridor~:~attemptedt.o avoid as much open space-as possible and"attempted to make the.iine as~,unobtrusive as possible. Further, the applican~ has-sent and~ceceived comments from the following agencies:~' Virginia~Departmen~of~ August 7, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) Conservation, Virginia Historic Resources, Virginia Marine Resources Commis- sion, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Soil and Conservation Service and the Army Corps of Engineers. The applicant has attempted to address all the concerns expressed by County staff and the Commission. Mr. Yeaman said the transmission line is within 350 feet of the Straley property. The line will be adjacent to the rear of the property, but not be built on it. If the right-of-way is required, the applicant will have the right to cut danger trees on the Straley property. Danger trees a~e any trees that could fall within ten feet of a conductor. Other than that the applicant has no rights on the Straley property. The transmission line will be within 250 feet of the Pritchett property. This property actually fronts on Route 29 and~there is no way to~avOidthe distance. He thanked the Board for its time and. said .the applicant has done everything it can to satisfy the staff, the Commission and citizens of the County. This line is needed and the applicant requests approval of the routing so that construction and preparation can~ begin. Mr. Yeaman noted that several ofthe consultants~for the project are present and will address any concerns Board members may have~ Mr. Bowerman asked how long the applicant thinks the ll5kV line will be in existence and if the same road can be used if the tine needs to be upgraded to ahigher standard in the future. Mr. 3ohn Dalton~ an electrical engineer~, representing the applicant, said "yes". The economic life of the structures and conductors is25 to 30 years. Mr. Bowerman asked if a 230kV line~coutd~e installed through-this same route if the current route meets the height. limitations, topography, etc.,-within the right~of-way. Mr. Dalton~saidthe structures will be high enough to carry a 230k¥ line. It would have-tO completelyrebuilt, the cross arms would have to be raised, longerinsn]ators would have to be raised and a wider right-of-way would Probably be a Prudent item to obtain. The 100 footwide right-of-way could be'utilized, but he believes the applicant'would rather widen thee-right-of-way by another 12-~to 25 feet on either side. - Mr. Lee Estes, Assistant Chairman of the Board of Rappahannock Electric Cooperative, said he represents Region III, which"is Albmmmrle, Greene and-~ Orange Counties, on the Board. Rappahmnnock seesat th~s tim~ adire need-¥for this service. They are committed to providing reliable, efficient service~am economically as possible.~ They studied this system for quite some time and havetried to follow throUghon .all the concerns expressed. ~s mentioned Mr~Yemmmn, in December; 1989, ~overheating of thelinescausedtremendous problems.~ Currently,~theysee no alternative but~to build'the new line. urges~?the 'Board's-~appro~al of the request. -. Mr. OakleyStraley said he is'the owner or'Parcel E~-the parcel that~' Rappahannock ~is being allowed to "'zig-zag" through and'brutalize.- The appli- cant ~stated'that the shortest distance ~between two'points 'isa straight line~~ and this route is not a straight line because the'line is literally going to destroy and butcher his property. He is totally against this application. The applicant is'already talking about further ~expansion in'~the-future which means taking more of his property. He has two teenage children who build homes' on this property. He has abouti35 acres which 'can onlybe~'subdi-~ vided~into'two parcels'. Nobodyasked him~what he wanted to do with his!- property.~ This property is in an agricultural/~forestal~district-and~he thinks the Board needs to really-think about what it is about to approve. Rappah~n~ nook is butchering his property to death. Ms. Alice Straley-said this property was passed down from her great-great grandfather. She. loves this property and does not see it in terms of dollars and cents.~ This~property~means nature. She keeps hearingthewor~' "progress~ " and'~we .cannot stand in the wayof it in Albmmarle County"', but she~asks ..... "wh " ~ose:progress· is it~ As ~far as she is concerned,.'this county is overgrown right now.' Route 29 is one stop light after the other will little dinky shopping~.centers that are ~vacant% She has a piece of property that she-loves, that is rural and.has trees. Whatwill thisapplication do to the environ-~ ment? She was told~by 'the County that she could not cut within so many feet of the creek on her property because ~of the watershed, Now Rappahannoc~ is about to cut at ~the'top of herproperty which leaves a'little strip through. themiddle for her'use and she would like to know what she is-supposed~to do ~ with that. She cannot plant trees back. where Rappahannockintends The applicant says 100 feet, but fails to tell the Board that in some Places August 7, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) 67 it will be 80 feet. The land next door belongs to her brother andthe pro- posed line goes right through his hayfield. Last week Mr. Johnson, on the Planning COmmission, expressed concern about trees being cut down behind the Sheraton on Route 29 because people could see them. Her trees are just as beautiful and· the only difference is that she is the only one who can see them. She also heard the discussion about putting two satellite dishes on the corner of Rio Road and not wanting people to see them. She will have to live with seeing this line every day for the rest of her life. She will have to put up with this again when Rappahannock comes back and asks for more pro- perty. If she keeps "giving" her property to the electric company what will she have left, a piece of property to pay taxes on every year which is all it will be good for. There being no other comments from· the public, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowie asked'where the transmission line-runs~on the-~Straleypr0perty. Mr. Keeler·said~the atig-mmnt runs totally across theStraley property~ The alignment takes up to50feet in some places·. Mr.~Bowie noted a letter dated August 6, 1991, from Mr~ Charles ~T~ Lebo~ a resident of North Pines Subdivision~ who states that he has no objectionto the·'~application, but asks that the following be done: 1) increase the-screen- ing of the~site with additional planting; and 2) maintain~Weed and grass'by cutting on a regular basis. Mr~ Keeter said'the applicant hms proposed additional, planting of red' trees and~ some low growing shrubs~ There will also be some additional planting along Route 763. Those will be a part of the site plan'approval. .Mr. Bain asked who enforces the height requirement. Mr. Keeler replied that technically the Zoning~Office enforces all conditions. Mr, Bain asked ifthe Straley property is in an'agricultural/forestal district.. Mr. Keeler replied "no", the Straley property is in the rural areas district. Mr. Bain said he th~nks the applicant has madeevery effort to minimize~'~ the impact, on surrounding properties~ He-agrees that'the transmissiOn line is needed for the customers. Motion was then~offered·by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr~ Bowerman, to·approve SP-90-99, subject to the conditions recommmnded by the Planning Comm~ssion,'set out as follows: The granting of this permit does not guarantee the availability of electric power to the applicant and shall not be construedms approving the modification, construction or reconstruction of--any- facility not-specifically-approved herein.; i~The granting of'this permit shall not be'deemed to~impair or~ otherwise affect the rights of the applicant or any other person·~ concerning the acquisition of any right-of-way or other interest in property for suchline or the compensation to'be paid there- for.'~ Except~for angle structures as described-in~Attachment~-G~ ...... right-of~way'width shall not exceed 100 feet; 3'... Suspension structures shall be-in general'~accordance with~Attach~ ment G, provided thatstructuresshall not exceed height'or width dimensions described in Attachment G. A maximum height limit of 100 feet-shall~applywhere height limits shown on theattachments must be exceeded, due to topography; 4. Outside ~·of the right-of-way, the-applicant shall have the right to cut danger trees only. A danger tree is defined as any tree which, if felted, would fallwithin ten feet:-of a conductor;' Within the right-of-way, the appticantshall preservevegetation and trees within 15 feetofstream crossings~and publiCroads to the maximum'extent practicable allowing for the'safe operation and maintenance of the line; ~ August 7, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) 68 The applicant shall take all reasonable measures to minimize the adverse impact of such line on adjacent properties, on the neighborhood and on the County, consistent with good engineering practice; Department of Engineering approval of stream crossings; Staff approval of site plans for substations; Centerline of transmission shall not be located closer than 250 feet to any dwelling and shall be in accord with the routing indicated in Attachment A; Rappahannock Electric will negotiate other means of maintenance. with individ,,~! property owners objecting to herbicide usage. Roll was called and the motion carried by thefoltowing recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. (At 8:35 P.M., the Chairman called a recess. The Board reconvened at 8:49 P.M.) Agenda Item No, 7. SP-91-23. Charlottesville Quality Cable Corporation. To locate a190 ft'transmission tower on part of 234.2 ac zoned RA. Property on S side of Rt 53 on Carter's Mtn. TM91,P28(part). Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the~DaitY Progress on July 23 and July 30, 1991.) Mr. Keeler su~m~rized the following staff report: "Character of the Area: This property is at the top of Carter's Mountain, with approximately seven towers located in proximity.to'the proposed tower site. The two adjacent towers were approved by the Board of Supervisors for Motorola (200 feet) and CVET (293 feet). Applicant's Proposal: The~applicant is proposing to construct a-~ transmission tower of approximately 190 feet. The tower will be used for 'wireless cable television'. Two to three ground satellit~ receiving dishes are also Proposed as~wellas an?equipment~building. Thetower design-will accommodate additional users. The signal is.-- received by thecustomer through a small antenna. This antennae is approXimately one-tenth the size of a standard VH~antenna. Comprehensive Plan: A stated design~standardof the Comprehensive Plan is 'design public utility corridors to fit the topog~raphy, Corridors should be shared by utilities, when possible, Distribution lines~should be placedunderground', The intentof this,statement is toconsolidate locatiOnS; therefore, Sincethe tower is located in an areawithm~ny other towers, the application is consistent with this standard. The opportunity to cluster towers is limited by topography. Staff has encouraged consolidation of new' towers in-existing-tower farms~ such as on Carter'sMountain, ~ Staff"Comment: Attachment C (on file) is the applicant's submittal entitled 'SUMMARYOF INFORMATION' whichis presented in t he.form of a planning staff report and analysis. Staff is-in basiCs-agreement with opinions stated~by the applicant andrecommends that-the proposal satisfy; criteria for issuance of a special use permit as set forth in 31~2~4.1.~ · The following summarycomments.are offered: 1~ -~Location: The applicant attempted to locate on existing towers- · on Carter's' Mountain. These attemptswere unsuccessful due--to a lack of~avaitable~capacity on existing towersor technical incompatibility with other users. The proposed tower wit, s. be located within,500 feet ofthree existing towers and will be of equal or less height than existing towers. Thenearest dwelling is located approximately3000 feet~ distant. August 7, 199.1 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) 2) Capacity: As stated by the applicant in Attachment C, the tower will be designed to accommodate additional users. Further information from the applicant indicates that the applicant will use approximately one-third of the total capacity of the tower and has already been in contact with prospective users. This approach, providing excess capacity, is consistent with the County efforts. 3) Visibility: The tower will be visible from large areas of the county; however, the towers proximity to existing towers will result in a minimal change in the appearance of the mountain. The ground equipment for the existing towers located adjacent to thiS site".have'"limited* visibility. Staff is recommending admin- istrative approval of the site plan for the location of all ground equipment. In review of the s~te plan staff will require screening measures~,if~necessary. 'Therefore, based On the tower's proximity to existing towers-and a 'condition mllowing staff to require screening of the ground equipment, this:use~Will not be-'ofsubstantial detr~mmnt~to adjacent-properties'and the character of. the district, will not be changed. To further enhanceshared usage of the tower, staff will recommend that no separate special use permits be required for future users on this tower, provided that certain conditions are satisfied. Staff recommends approval of SP-91-23, Charlottesville CableCorpora- tion, subject to the following conditions: RecommendedConditions of Approval: 1, Tower-height notto exceed 200 feet. Tower to be located as described byapplicant; ..- 2. Administrative~ approval of site plan to include: a. Staff approval of equipment building~andsatellite~receiving dishes sites~and, if appropriate, screening measures; 3. As to future tower users, staff may administratively approve additional antennae installation under the following circum- stances: a. Continued compliance with Section 5.1.12 (AttachmentD) of . the, Zoning Ordinance including safety measures related to cumulative RF radiation such asfencing of areas where ANSI ~standards-~wouldbe-exceeded; b. If~such installation is an element or segment of a network or system.which-requires Boardapproval~, such installation shall not'be authorizeduntil Board approval has been 0btained~ for the~entire 'network .or-system; 4. Department of Engineering approval of tower design to insure that in the~ event of,'collapse the tower~fatls within-the lease area. Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 2, 1991, unanimously recommmnde~-approval of SP-91~23 subject to the conditions recom- mended by the staff, with the fo]lowing change~tO condition #1:' !'1.~ Tower height not to exeeed'~200'~feet. Tower, groundequipment, andsatellite dishes to be located and configuredas'dmscribedby applicant in AttachmentC and sketch initialtedW.D.F~, dated July 2, 1991." Mr. Bain asked ifa,the.FAA requires the tower to be lighted..Mr.~Keeler replied "no". This tower'is proposed to'be 190 feet;~ lighting is required at 200 feet. - - ~ The public hearing was opened. Mr. Start Allen, President of' Charlottesville Quality Cable, anda resi- dent of the County, said they will install antennas on the roof tops of houses that subscribe to .the service. They will be offering a cable-type service,- August 7, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) 70 without the cable. A large satellite dish will be used to receive the pro- gramming. The service will be offered to Albemarle and surrounding counties, They have also entered into relationships with Charlottesville and Fluvanna school systems, and. two private schools to lease excess air capacity trans- mission time in return for providing educational program and for a monetary lease payment. They will address the Albemarle County School Board on Monday night with a similar proposal. Mr. Bowerman asked the quality of the reception versus cable service. Mr. Allen said the quality of the reception is actually better than one would get over a coaxial cable within 15 to 20 miles of the tr~ission site because the signal goes out over the airwaves and does not have to be reampli- fied:asit moves througha.ltraditiOnal cable. Mr. Bowie asked about the charge for service. Mr. Allen said they will ~harge subscribers an installation fee and a monthlyservice charge Which-has not yet been set~ Mr. Bowie asked~how many channels~will be offered.~ ~Mr. Allen said eventually they'will be able to offerupto 32 Channels. Mr. Bowermanasked if this is new technology. Mr% Attenresponde~ "no". It has been aroundsince the mid-1970's and was initially used primarily ~for transmitting educational programming. The commercial application of the technology is relatively new. The FCC authorized its use in 1983 and there are currently about 40 such systems operating in the country. Thiswill~be the first operating system in Virginia. Mr. Bowermmn asked how theftof signal is prevented. Mr. Allen said the signal~ is coded and scram_bledat their"transmission point. Each subscriber hasa settop converter which~.? descrmmhl~s~ the signal~ There-is a proprietary computer chip which prevents a pirate from trying to redesign the converter box. '~Mr. Perkins asked the range of the signal.-Mr~ Allen saidthe signm~-is primarily by line of' sight. The signal-will not get 'over the mountains~tothe West, otherwise, itwill generally go outi35-miles from Carter's Mountain. There are some areas that will be shadowed because of tall mountains and tall buildings. Mr'~ Wendell,Wood saidhe-owns~property o~two sides of the site. He is not opposed to this application, but he does have a problem~with two current towers that have four guide wires onhis property.. These wires are prohibit- ing himtheuse of his property. He is trying to bea gOod neighbor, ~ut wants the Board robe aware of theproblem.~' He has not been told~-where· exactly tkis newtower will'be located, He wants %o make sure that in the Board's approval, the right'boundaries are' ussd. Mr. Tucker commented that staff is aware of this problem and the Zoning Department~ in its inspection, can make sure~that thelinesare wi~the boundaries of the owner's property. Mr. St. John said~the Board~should not put a condition on ~ request that the action take place om the applicant's property~ because that' is required as a matter.of law." 'There are~ legal remedies to take care of Mr. Wood's problem. ~ Therebeing no other commmnts fromthe public,.-the publichearing was closed. MOtion was'offered byMr. Way, seconded by'-Mrs~ Humph~is,~to-~approve SP-9t-23subject-tothe following conditions recommended-by the Plmnning Commission: .... ~ · ~ 1. Tower height not to exceed 200 feet. Tower, ground equipment and satellite~ dishes to be lOcated andconfiguredas described by~ applicant in~AttachmentC and sketch initialled W.D.F~, dated July.2., 1-99-1; 2-. Administrative approval.of, site.~plan to include: a. Staff approval of equipment building and satellite receiving - dishes sites'and, if appropriate~~ screening measures; 3. As to future tower users, staff may administratively approve additional'antennae installation under,'the following cir.cum- stances: , August 7, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) 71 Continued compliance with Section 5.1.12 (Attachment D) of the Zoning Ordinance including safety measures related to cumulative RF radiation such as fencing of areas where ANSI standards would be exceeded; If such installation is an element or segment of a network or system which requires Board approval, such installation shall not be authorized until Board approval has been obtained for the entire network or system; 4. Department of Engineering approval of tower design to insure that in the event of collapse the tower falls within the lease area. ~i,Rblt was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, ~Bowermmu~ Bowie, Mrsl~,Humphris~ Mr. Perkins~andMr~Way, NAYS: None, ~ · Agenda Item No. 8, SP-91-24. Jean Baum. For a commercial stable on 25.1 ac zoned RA-& EC,~ Property on E side'of Rt 20'app~ox 4/10 mi 641. TM35,P43C. Rivanna Dist, (Advertised-in- the Daily Progress ~on: Juty 23 and July 30, 1991.) -. Mr. Keeler summmrized the following staff report: "Character of the Area: This site is ~mostly woOded%with evergreen- trees and is--develoPed' with a single fmm~ly dwelling, stables and. riding ring (Attachment C-on~fite indicates the, location~ of'existing structures. The riding ring location has been added by staff and is approximate) ~- A single 'family, dwelling' is~ located On property to the south. The stables and riding ring are not visible from the state road or dwellings, Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposingto operate a*commer- cial.stable housingup tol4'horses, The applicant:'will train-the-~ horSes in the~artof dressage.. A maximum ofth=ee employees is proposed, two full time-employees and one'student intern. The appli- cant anticipates a maximum of eight horses being trained and boarded at atime. The appliCant hms provided a description of this request (Attachment D on file). Comprehensive-Plan:,,This site is located in Rural Area II~ An adjacent property, Tax. Map 35~ Parcel 26, is inthe Blue RunAgricul-' tural/Forestal District. This use should have no impact~on the district:due to the distance.of the stables from the.district and the woOded nature-of the~area~ The Comprehensive Ptan: states,as a goal 'promote thecontinuation of a viable agricultural and forestal industry and resource-base'. It is the opinion of staff that the proposed use is in accord-with this goal.. Summary and Recommendation: The facititieslneeded forthe, proposed use currently exist and. only minor maintenance/improvements are.. necessary~ The applicant has stated'thatthis site-was~used as a commercial stable inthe past,~however, staff is'unable to'locate any County records indicating approval for a commercial stable (this site is not being used at thistime). VDoT has stated that the existing entrance does n0t-have.the minimum necessary sight distance (Attach- ment~ E on file). Only limited trimming and clearing of vegetationis needed to improvethe entrance in accordance with VDoT.~comments, No dwellings are visible'~from'-the site. A maximumofthree employees isproposed and amaximum of 14 horses willbe boarded. Conditions limiting activity to the above levels will limit the. maximum activity on-site to atevel that will notaffect adjacent properties. Staff notes that this use will increase traffic volumes, Staff~calculations indicate this use,-may,generate~between 22,~to 34~vehicle trips per-day which is equal,to two to, three dwellings,;-~ This property doesnot retain any developmant rights;~therefore, this use~lwill increase traffic over that normally expected. -Staff opinion is.thatthe August 7, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) 72 proposed use is supportive of the rural areas and that the limited activity on-site will not effect other properties or change the character of the district. Compliance with the provisions of Section 5.1.3 will protect the public health, safety and welfare. Based on the above comments, staff recommends approval of SP-91-24, Jean Baum, subject to the following conditions: Riding rings and riding surfaces shall be covered and maintained with a material such as pine bark to minimize dust and erosion; Fencing and other methods of an~mml confinement shall be main- tainedat all times; Not more than three employees; Not more than 14 horses shall be boarded on:site; ....... Hours ofoperation 'for outdoor acti¥ities shall be-during day- light hours only, indoor facilities may operate between 6 a.m, and 6 p.m~; ~ Facilities shall be limited to that shown on Attachment C provid- ed that the existing 'stables may b~expandadin~order to achieve an olympic sized ring.; Upgrading ofentrance in accordance width Virginia Department of Transportation comments of June 10, 1991." Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July :2, 1991, unanimously recommended approva:l of SP-91-2~::subject to the conditions recom- mended by,the staff. Mr. Keeler suggested for clarification that condition #6 be worded as fottows:--"Facilities shall be limited to~ttiat,shownon ~Attach- ment C provided that the existing stable, building may' be expanded in order to achieve .an Olympic' size ring within the building". Mr. Bain asked why 'the hours of operation:recommended,~by the Commission (6 a.m. to 10:00 p~'m.) were changed from that requested~(9:00 a,m. t'o 6:00 p.m.) by the applicant. Mr. Keeler suggested that the applicant respond to that question. The public:hearingwasopened. Mr. Robert'Janney, representing the applicant, said the applicant is asking that she be allowed to continue a use that existed on the' property. The current stable on the property was built about four years' ago. The-difference in the use requested by~-Ms. Baumand that:which was'previously usedis that Ms. ~Baumwilt bepaid compensation for hoUSing the horses on the property. There are already-14 stables on the property. Theyare'notexpanding the use or the napacity~of thestabte- building~ They do'propose to expand the horsering which witt'.be inside the building. The, usage of the property will not be intensive because there will not be a multitudeof people. The property will mostly be used for training. the horses~ Thisisan extremely beautiful piece,of proper~ywith a-sloping hillside to the eas~t. The s~able'is located down the 'hill from the house and ispractically~nonvisible'fromRoute 20.-~The area around, the property is timbered and the terrain makes it such that the farm and stable is hidden. The applicant is in'agreement with the conditions recommended by the Commis- sion. Ail of the neighbors have,been contacted and he knows of no opposition to the proposal. He introduced Ms. Jean~Baum,, the applicant, and Mr~Tom'' Pullen, the manager and operator of-the operations~ In response to Mr, Bain's question, theyrealized that they-would'need longer hours for indoor ~op~a- tions 'only. - ........ ~.~ 'Mr~ Bowie asked if the applicant has,a problem with-adding a condition to prohibit cutting existing screening and vege%atiom..Mr. Janneysaid the omly cutting they intendto'do isthat which is recon~nended by the Highway ~epart- mont. The outdoor riding ring is near,the property which does not allowroom to do.any further.'cutting~-He has. no prOblem with adding another condition to maintain screenin.g-from the-~ road and adjacent properties~ ~ August 7, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 19) 73 Mr. Bowie asked if anyone else was present in support of this applica- tion. Three persons raised their hands. There being no one else present to speak to this application, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowie suggested that if this application is approved, the following condition #8 be added: "Maintain current screening from road and adjacent properties". Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Perk~n~, to approve SP-91-24, subject to the conditions recommended by the Commission, with the amendment to condition#6 asP state~ bY Mr. Keeler and an added condition #8, all.~-set:out as follows: 1. ~Riding/rings and riding s~r~.faces~-s,hall~be.~-novered~.an~ma~n.ta~ned, ~ · with amaterial .such as p.~ne bark to minimize dust and erosion; 2, -Fencing and-other methods of animai confiinement shall~ be main- - · ~.tained.at all t~m~s; 3~ Not more than three employees; ~- ~. 4. - Not more than 14 horses shall be boarded on-site; Hours 'of operation for outdoor, activities Shall'be during day- lighthours only; indoor facilities may operate-between 6.a.m. and 10~p~m.:; . _ ~ ~ Facilities. shall be limited to that shown on Attachment C, provided~that the existing stable:..buila~ng-maybe expanded-in order'to achieve an Olympic size ring within~the-build'.~ng; Upgrading or-entrance in accordance with Virginia,Department~of Transportation commm~ts of June 10, 1991; 8. Maintain current-'screening from road and adjacent properties. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Bain,-Bowerman, Bowie,~ Mrs, Humphris, Mr.~Perkins and Mr. Way. None. - (The Chairman suggested discussing tha~-next- two items together.) Agenda Item No~.-9. An ordinance to amenRand reenact Section,~2-52 of the Code of Albemarle to increase the number of bond issuances of the Industrial DevelOpment Authorityfrom twelve,to thirteen..(Advertised in the~Daily Progress on July'23 and~ Julys30, 1991.) Agenda Item No. 10. Bond Inducement Resolution: Our Lady of Peace, Inc. Mr. Tucker presented the following memorandum dated August 2, 1991: "OnAUgust 1, 1991, the Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority passed an inducement resolution for Our Lady of Peace, Inc., to apply to the Board of Supervisors to approve the issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds no~ to-exceed $14~000~000%~, The project consists of the'construction of approximately 112,780 square feet on a se~en-acre~'site at Br~nchlandsto horse-and Car~for theelderly. The Board'~s approvatdoes not constitute an endorsemlent, of the project, but-does atlowthem to secure tax-advantagedfinancing as permitted by the Code of Virginia and the Internal Revenue Service Code. The Board of'Supervisors approved the special use per_mit o~ September 5, 1990, for this project and the~building permit~-.t~s-beenissumd for August 7, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 20) construction. The applicant will be represented by J. Franklin Williams should there be any questions by the Board." 74 The public hearing was opened. Mr. Robert McNichols, consultant for His Excellence Walter F. Sullivan, Bishop of Richmond, said they appeared before the Industrial Development Authority and the Authority approved the request. He is prepared to answer any questions Board members may have. Also present are Mr. Darrell Smelcer, Attorney-at-Law with Hunton & Williams and bond counsel; and Ms. Ruth DePiro, President of the Corporation. They respectfully request that the Board adopt the amendment to the ordinance and pass the inducement resolution. -There being no other commmn~ts from the public, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by. Mr. Bowerman, to adopt an ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2-52 of the Code of Albemarle to increase the number of bond issuances of the Industrial Development Authority from twelve to thirteen.' Roll was called-and the motion carrie~, by the' following recorded, vote: AYES~: Messrs. Bain, Bowermmn,~ Bowie, Mrs.~ t{umphris, Mr. Perkins and Mrs- -Way. NAYS': None. (The ~rdinance as adopted is set out below: ) - - AN ORDINanCE TO AMEND AND REENACT ~ SECTION 2-52 OF ARTICLE~ IX CODE OF ALBEMARLE ENTITLED "INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUT}IORITY" BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle ~County, Virginia, that the Code of Albemarle is hereby amended and reenacted in~ Section 2-52 of Article IX, Industrial Development. A~thor~ity~ as ~ follows: Sec.~.2-52.~.' Limitmtiom ~n number of~ bond-issues. ~--.. There shallbe no morethan thirteen bond issuances of the indUStrial-development authority of the county in 'm~istence at any one time. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Way, to adopt the Bond Inducement Resolution as presented.~ ROll was called and the motion carried,by the following recorded vote- AYES: Messrs. ~ain, Bowerman, Bowie~ 'Mrs. Humphzis, Mr.,.Perkins. an~Mr%. Way. NAYS: -None ...... (The adopted Resolution is set out below:) RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COb~TY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA ....... The 7th day of August, 1991 WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia (the"Authority")~ has considered theapptication of Our Lady ofPeaeeg Inc.~(the "Corporation'.'), for the ~ssuance-~of the ~Authority's revenue bonds in-'an amount not to exceed $14,000,000 (the "Bonds") to assist the Company in acquiring, constructing and equip- ping. a facility fo~the residence mhd care ofthe elderly of~approx~--~, matety 112,780 square feet (the "Project"), to be"located in Albemarle County, Virginia, on a siteof approximately 7 acres at 751Hillsdale Drive; and-~ WHEREAS, the Authority-has helda public hearing on the issue of the Bonds for the-financing om August i99t; and August 7,~1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 21) 75 WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Tax Code"), and Section 15.1-1378.1 of the Code of Virginia, as amended (the "Virginia Code"), provide that the govern- mental unit having jurisdiction over the issuer of private activity bonds and over the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of private activity bonds is located must approve the issu- ance of the bonds; and WHEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "County"); the Project is located in the County and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemazle, Virginia (the "Board") constitutes the highest elected gover~tal unit of the County; and WHEREAS, the Authority recommends that the Board approve the issuance-of the Bonds; and 'WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the~. issuance of the Bonds, a record of the-public hearing anda "fiscal impact statement" with respect to the financing and the. Project have been filed with' the Board; _ ~ ~ BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board hereby approves the iss-ance of-the~.:Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the Company to the'extent required by Section 147(f) of' the-Tax Codeand Section 15.1-378.1 of the Virginia COde, to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project 2. Approval of the issuance of the Bonds as required, by Section 147(f) of~ithe TaxCodedoes not' constitute an.endorsennent ~to apro- spective purchaser of the Bonds or the creditworthiness of'..the!Project or'the Company, andy as required bY-Section 15:.l~,1380,of~the, Virgule Code, theBonds shall provide that neither the County nor theAuthor~- ty shall be obligated to pay the Bonds or the interest thereon or othercosts inCident~thereto except-from the revenues and moneys pledged therefOr, and neither the faith and credit nor the taxing power of the Conm~onwealth of Virginia, the County or the Authority shall be pledgedthereto~ 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its · adoption. Agenda Item No; 11, An ordinance to amend~and reenact Section 2-2.1~of the Codeof Albemarle setting the compensation of theBoar~ of Supervisors for Fiscal'~Year 1992-at $8,820.00, an~increase of~four percent. (Advertised~in the Daily Progress-on July 23 and July 30-, 1991.) The public hearing was openext.~ There beingno one from the public present to speak, the public hearing was el:os, ed.- Motion was offeredbyMrs. Humphris~ seconded byMr. Bowerm~n, to-adopt An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact Section 2-2.1 of the Code of Albemarle setting the Compensation of the Board of Supervisors for Fiscal Year~1992. Roll was called and the motion'carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. (The adoptedresolution is set out below:) - ~ AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND ~ REENACT ARTICLE I, CHAPTER 2, "ADMINISTRATION" OFTHE CODE OFf'ALBEMARLE ~ ' ' SETTING THE'COMPENSATION OF THE BOARD. OF SUPERVISORS FOR FISCALYEAR 1992 August 7, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 22) 76 BE IT ORDAINED that Article I, Chapter 2, "Administration" of the Code of Albmmmrle, in Section 2-2.1, be amended and reenacted to read as follows: Sec. 2-2.1. Compensation of board of supervisors. The salary of the board of supervisors is hereby set as follows: Eight thousand eight hundred twenty dollazs and no cents ($8,820.00) for each board member; provided, that in addition to his/her regular salary, the vice-chairman shall receive a stipend of thirty-five dollars ($35,00) for each and every meeting chaired; provided, fur- ther, that in addition to his/her regular salary, the chairman shall receive a Stipen& of one thousand eight hundred dollars ($1,800.00). Agenda Item No. 12. SP-91~36. VerulmmFarm Limited: Partnership~ To amend SP-90-119 and SP-90~120 (a, 43 tot rural~ preservation development&',a bridge in flood plain of Ivy Creek) to allow pvt rds instmmd of public rds. Property in SE quadrant of 1-64 & Rt 637. TM74,P's18,18A,18B&23, Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in the~Daily Progress on,July 23 and July 30, 1991.) Mr. Keeler summarizedthe following staff-report: ...... "Character of the Area: The property under review is a mixture-of pasture and woodlands.~.There are currently three dwellings-and various farm buildings on the site.. The lower portion of the site, adjacentto Route 637, is in the floodplain of Ivy Creek. The ~property then' risesto the'~top of Bear DenMountainand includes land on the eastern slope of the mountain. The land between the stream and top of the mountain is rolling with moderate to critical slopes. The steeper slopes and stream valleys are wooded. The~prope=ty parallels ~--6~' for, approximately~l~5 miles. The development, mrea parallels 1-64 for approximately 0.6 miles and is approximately 0.5miles deep from+ 1-64. The property' adjacent and to the south is Rosemont and is~ currently ,being~ developedwith singiefamily houses,. Other properties in the area are used for pasture or hay with the steeper slopes remaining'wo'oded~ 'APplicant's Proposal: The. applicant~'is proposing to amend-~SP~90~ll9 and SP-90~120~in 'order to altowthe use of private roads(designed to Virginia Department of Transportation' mountainous-standardsinstead of public roads, designed to. Virginia Depaztment of Transportation rolling standards)~toserve a 43-totRural Preservation Devetopment..~Theuse of Public roads was indicated-on the previous speciai use permits~ The use of private roads will permit the applicant to' realign the road in'order to avoid ar~m~ requiring significant grading andto 'usethe~ location of~the existing stream cros'sing.-(TheEngineering Department has. stated that it is unable to determine,~at this tim~ if, the-existing bridge structure'is adequate.) · ~. .~, Summary 'and Recommendation: Staff has reviewed theapplinant's reqUast for a~"private road based on the provisions of Section 18-36b(1) of the Subdivision Ordinance (Attachment C on file ). The applicant .~assubmitted a letter of~-justification-(Attac~ment D on file) as well as engineering ,data which has'been'reviewed~bythe Engineering Department and~the~Water Resources Manager.' ,The comments · of~those departments are included as Attachments E~and F~ Theapplicant-has cited that the use of-a public road, designe~ to Virginia Department of~Transportationrotting standards, will resUlt in,-an increase of approximately 73 percent. in the total-grading volume when compared' tothe construction of~ private-roads~ designed'to Virgin- ia Department of Transportation mountainous standards. The~F~lgineer,- lng Department~has reviewed this information and has agreed with the applicant's calc,,]mtions and supports the applicant's ~equest. The Water Resources Manager has also reviewed the applicant's ir[formation and has ~stated:-, 'To the extent that use of' the existing cross~ng of Ivy Creek can be utilized, private roads should provide for greater~ overall protectionof water quality, both during construction after completion,-' August 7, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 23) 77 It is the opinion of staff that the applicant has successfully ad- dressed the issues contained in Section 18-36b(1) of the Subdivision Ordinance and that the use of private romd~ is consistent with the previous approval of the Rural Preservation Development and stream. crossing for this site; therefore, staff recommmnds approval subject to the following conditions. The recommended conditions of approval for SP-91-36 are the same as those for SP-90-119 and SP-90-120 except as noted below. Staff has restated the previous conditions for convenience of review. Changes to conditions not directly related to the issue of public vs. private roads are not within the scope of the applicant's request. ~,?~Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1'% Not more:than four dwellings/lots-shall be' altowed'inthe preser- -vation tract and shallbe located as-shownon the-preliminary, plat. Lots shall be no less than~2,O acres: and no greater than 4.3 acres in size. Ail dwellings/iota must qualify-as 'Family Divisions'. Approval of SP-90-1t9does not-guarantee-approval of 'Family Division';'- A minimum o.f ten trees per, acre shall be provided on:the'.'devetop- ment 10ts in accordance with Section 32~7-.9~5 of~the Zoning Ordinance for-the purpose of providing-screening from the public ,roads, i.e., 1-64 and Route 637. Trees,shall be-installed within two planting seasons of' the date of the issuanceof a certificate of occupancy for thedwetlin.g on the lots; 3. Clearing shall be l~m~t.ed to the minimum amount necessary for the construction of-access roads and dwellings; 4. New-dwellings 'shall beof earth~-tones; 5. The bridge shall not be-constructeduntil-thefollowing approvals have been. obtained: a. Department of Engineeringissuance of-an erosion control permit; b. Department ~of Engineering approval of bridge design;- ,c. Department of,~Engineering~-approval~of hydrogeologic and hydraulic calculations to ensure compliance with,Section 30~3 of the Zoning Ordinance; d~---V~rg~n~a-Bepartment-of-~ransportat~°n-app~ova~-of,br~dge_and r~ad-ptamS~ 6. Department of Engineering approval~of private road p]~mnm and' drainage'calculations. Private road shall be d~ned to Virgi- nia Department of Transportation mountainous standards.. · Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at -its meeting on July 30, '1991, unanimously recommended-approval of~-SP-91-36subject to the conditions recom- mended by the staff. Mr. Bain asked the-width o'f pavement requirement. Mr. Keeler replied that the width is between 20 and22 feet'depending on volume.. The public,~hearing was~-opened. Mr~'Bob McKe~-representing Ver~arm Limited Partnersh-ip,,~.~said-the biggest difference in traffic volume will be at the entrance. Most of the difference is near the flood plain of Ivy Creek, Mr. Bowie eommented that the, Highway Department's.letter ~ndicates the,sight distance is short. ~Mr. McKee sai~ the sightdiStance-is adequate at, the intersection. Mr. Mcgee said the. mountainous terrain-.standards..allows them to_ have tighter turns, avoid knocking down certain large trees and'allows use of the existing bridge which will prevent a lot of construction in the flood plain~ ~ August 7, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 24) 78 Mr. Bain asked the grade through most. of the area where the roads are shown. Mr. McKee did not know the exact nttmber but coming into the property it is fairly flat; the steep area is to the left. Mr. St. John asked if it was necessary to have a condition about a road maintenance agreemmnt. Mr. Keeler said that is an automatic condition. The=e being no other comments from the public, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bain said there previously was an ordinance requirement that if a road served more than a certain number of lots, a private road. would not be allowed~ Mr. K~ter said .the current~provisions the Ordinance provide that roads above 20 lots can be private, but at VDoT standards. When private road provisions were last amended, the amendment made them available in the rural areas only where-there were environmental~ concerns. ~Inthe future~ except for few.tots, County private roads will be constructed to'VDoT mountainousstand- ards. Mr. Bain expressed concern about allowing private roads especially with the-determining factor being the terrain. He thinks that in later years people will come to the Board and question why the Board allowed these private roads. - . Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Perkins,~ to approve SP-91-36 Subject to the-following conditions as recommended by-the Planning 'Commission: 1. ~Not more than =four dwellings/lots shall be allowed in-the preserve, vation tract and shall be located as shown, on the-preliminary plat.-Lots~shall 'be no less than 2..-0 acres and' no greater than~ ~ 4.3acres insize. All dwellings/lots must qualify as '!Family Divisions". Approval of SP-90-119 does not guarantee~approval of "Family Divis ion"; 2. A minimum of ten trees per acre shall be~providedon the develop- · ~ ment~lots in accordance with Section 32.7.9.5 of the-Zoning Ordinance for'thepurpose of providing screening from the public roads, i.e., 1-64 and Route 637. Trees shall be installed within two planting seasons of the date-~of~the issuance of a certificate' of occupancy~for the dwelling on the lots; - '3, Clearing shall be limited to the minimum amount necessary for the conStruction, of 'access roads end.dwellings; .... AYES: NAYS.: New dwell~ings shallbe~of earth' tones. The bridge shall not be constructed until the following-approvals have been obtained: a. ~'~Department. of:Engineerin.g issuance of-an erosion controi - permit; ~ - . b. Department: of Engineering approval of bridge design; c. Department of Engineering-approval of hydrogeologic and hydraulic calculations to ensure compliance with Section 30~3 of. the Zoning-Ordinance; - 6. Department of Engineering approval of private road plans and: drainagecalcutations~ -Private romd'shall be designed, to Vir-- ginia Department of Transportation mountainous standards. Roll was caltedandthe motion carried by the following recorded vote: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs.-Humphris, Mr. Perkins: and:Mr..Way. None. August 7, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 25) 79 Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Minutes: March 20(N) March 25, March 27 and April 3(N), 1991. ' Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of March 25, 1991, pages 1-16 (end #4), and found them to be in order with the exception of two typos. Mr. Way had read the minutes of April 3(N), 1991, pages 1-15 (end #7) and found them to be in order. ' Mr. Bain had read the minutes of March 20(N), 1991, pages 1-8 (end #8), and found them to be in order. '~'~ Mr. Bowie had read the minutes of March 27, 1991, and found them to be in o~d~r With the exception of one typo. Mr. Bowie commented that these minutes were the meeting where the Board finally set the tax rate and approved the budget.~ The minutes were exactly as he remembered the disCussion. Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried.bythe followzng.· recorded:vote: AYES: -Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs, HUmphris~Mr; Perkins and Mr~Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item'No~ 14. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. ~ Mr~ Tucker reminded the Board the negotiations have been completed~for the Buck's Elbow Tower site. 'Set out below is thedeed, whichwas filed in the °ffiae~of the"Clerk~of theCircuit Cour~ on July 30.~ 1991':~ 'QUITCI.IIM DEED THIS INDENTURE, made this the 24th day of July, 1991, between the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, acting by and through the Administrator of General Sekvices~Under and pursuant to the powers and authority contained in the provision of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (P.L. 81-152) approved June 30, 1949, as amended (40 U;S.C. 484), and. regulations and orders promulgated-thereunder, Grantor, and ALBEMARLE COUNTY VIRGINIA, in Charlottesville, Virginia, Grantee. WITNESSETH: .... Therein ConsideratiOn ofthe sum'of SEVEN'THOUSAND FIVE'HUNDRED AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($7,500.00) the receipt of which is hereby acknow- ledged, Grantor has remised, released-and forever quitclaimedunto said Grantee, its'sUccessors and assigns, all ofthe right, title,~and interest~ claim and demand Which said Grantorhas~or may'have hadst'in and to all that~ tract, parcel of plot of land>known asthe Bucks Elbow RMLRSite~ situatedinthe Albemarle County, Charlottesville, State Of' Virginia; saidproperty~being more particularly-bounded and described as follows: Allthat tract or p~rcel of land'situated.in~ the White Hal/ Magisterial District of Albemarle County, Virginia, on Buck's Elbow Mountain and more fully described as follows: from a point.being at the intersection of existing road and RML Drive, proceed S 39° 59-' E, 67.26 feet to a point, said pointbeingth~-point of beginning, thence N40© tl:'.E, 16.00 feet t6 a point, thence S49° 49' W~ 100.0 feet~to a "'point, thence-S'40° 11!: W, 100.0 feet/to.a point,~thenne S 49°'49"E, 100.0'feet to point,, thence N'40~-'ll~ E 84.0 feet to the point of~b~ginning,~containing in a110.23 acre, more or less; -~ ~ ~ 'Permanent non,exclusive right-of-way ~ From-a pOint being at the northwesterly corner of the above described plot prOceed N 40° 11' E, 16.0 feet to a point August 7, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 26) 80 being the point of beginning and on the centerline of a 30 foot-wide right-of-way thence S 39° 59' E, 42.26 feet to a point, containing .029 acre, more or less. The records disclose that title was vested in the United States by deed dated February 2, 1976, filed in the Albemarle County, Virgin- ia Book of Deeds· at Liber No. 589, pages 451-453. SUBJECT, HOWEVER, to all existing easements and rights-of-way for streets, roads, highways, railroads, pipelines, public utilities, if any, whether of record or otherwise. ~-~? GRANTEB~COVENANTS~for~itself, its successors, and assigns, and ~-every successor in interest to the property hereby conveyed, or any part thereof, that the said Grantee and such heirs, successors, and assigns shalt~notdiscriminate upon the basis oflrace,~ cotor,-reli- gion,.national origin, orsex in the use, occupancy, sale, or lease of the property, or in their employment practices conducted thereon. This covenant shall not apply, however, to the lease or rental of a room or rooms within a family dwelling unit; nor shall it apply with respect to religion to premises used primarily for' religious purposes~ The United States of America shall be deem~da beneficiary of this covenant without regard to whether it remains the owner of any land or interest therein the locality of the property hereby conveyed-and shall have sole right to enforce this covenant in any court~ofcompe- tent jurisdiction. GRANTEE FURTHER COYENANTS. the following: (a) This covenant shall run with the land for a period of 3 yearsfrom.the date of~conveyance. Withrespect to-the~property describedin thisdeed, if at any time within'a3 year'-period from the date. of transfer of title 'by the Grantor, the Grantee, or its succes- sors or assigna, shall' sell or enter into agreements to sell' the property, either in asingle transaction, or ina series of~transac- tions, it~ is convenanted and a§reedthat~ai1 proceeds received~or to' be. received in-excess of the Grantee's or a subsequent, selle='~s actual allowable cosns will be remitted to theGran.tor. In the event of a sale of less thanl, the entire property~ actual allowable costs will be apportioned to thepropertybased on a fairand reasonable'deter~- tion by the Grantor. (b)'For-.purposes of~,~this covenant, the Grantee's or ~a subsequent seller's· allowable costs shall include the following: "(1)~ The purchase price of-the real property; · (~)'The direct costs actually incurred-and paid-for im~ provements which serve only the property~ including, road, construction, storm and sanitary sewer constructions~ other publicfacilitiesor utility constructions, building rehabilitation, and demolition, land~ scaping, grading, and other~site or'pubtic~improv~mmn.ts;, (3) The'direct costs actually incurred~andpaid~for~design and engineering services with-respe~tto the~'improvements'-described,in (b)(2) of this section; and (4) The<finance charges actually·incurred and'paid in conjunction with loans obtained to meet any of'the allowable costs enumerated above (c) None of the allowable costs described in paragraph (b) of this sectionWill be deductible if-defrayed-·by Federal grants or if used as matching f~unds to secure Federal grants .... (d) In order-to verifycompliance-with the terms and conditions of. this covenant, the Grantee,~or its'successorsor assigns, submit an annual report for each of the subsequent 3 years to the Grantor on the anniversary date of this deed,- Each"report witl~ identify the~property involved, in this transaction and-will.contain August 7, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 27) 81 such of the following items of information as are applicable at the time of submission: (1) A description of each portion of the property that has been resold; (2) The sale price of each such resolved portion; (3) The identity of each purchaser; (4) The proposed land use; and (5).. Anenumeration"of any allowable costs incurred and paid that would offset any realized profit. ~' (e) ~:The~Grantor may monitor the property an~inspectrecords~ related thereto to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of this covenant and may take any actions which it deems reasonable and prudent to recover any excess profits realized through theresale of the property. If no resale has been made, the report shall so state. TO HAVE. AND-TO HOLD the same, togetherwith all and singular the appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining, unto the said Grantee~ its successors and assignm, forever. The property' hereby 'conveyed hm~ heretofore been declared s~rptus to, the needs of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, is presently under the jurisdiction of the General Services Administration, is available for disposal and its~'~disposal has been heretofore, authorized-by-the ..... Administrator'~of'Gene~al Services, acting pursuant,to-the above -- referred to laws, regulations and orders. ..... Mr. Perkins asked how the contract for dry cleaning of police and sheriff' uniforms is handled.' Mr~ TUcker said the County putsOut requests for bids an annual basis. Mr. Bowie commented-that.-the Lt. Governor Beyer will be at Piedmont Virginia Community College on August 8, 1991, from 9:00 A.M. to 11:00 A.M, to lead an education-al seminar. Mr. Bowie said he received a letter from ~Mayor Alvin Edwards concerning forming~a City,-,Countyand. University comm~tteeto discuss transportation issues, His response totha Mayor was that he ~saw no reason to form such a committee-at this time because transportation issues was one ofthe reasons for forming theCity/County/University of Virginia PACC. Mrs. Numphris agreed and said that theMetropolitan Planning Organization and PACC both deal with-- transportation'and~she does:not seca need'foranother nommittee.~ Mr. Bain~ said if there is something the Mayor does not feel is being addressed by these groups., then he would be willing to consider the request. Mrs. Humphris presented pictures of the problem she mentioned at the Board meeting concerning Mr. and Mrs. Donnie Dunn's bridge project. Mr. Curtis Wood's right-of-way was destroyed' by, ?he bulldozing done for this bridge. Mr. St. John said the Zoning Administrator investigate~[ this complaint. He'has written a let~ter'~.to Mr~ and Mrs.' Dunn indicating that if the ford is not cleared and if the grading ~and the~bridge are not either removed or altered back to the: original condition so that Mr~ and Mrs~ Wood can have: free use of. the ford within-ten days, he: will-ask the County. Executive~ tO put this matter on the. Board!s agenda' for revocation of the special use permit. Mrs. Humphris then asked staff to investigate another bridge being installed to the north of Mr. and Mrs. Dunn's property for possible violation of the Zoning Ordinance. August 7, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 28) 82 Mr. Way asked the staff to provide a report for the September 11 meeting for extension of the service areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water and sewer to two properties located in the expanded growth area in the Community of Scottsville that are not currently in the service areas. Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:45 P.M. Chamrman NOTE: The following resolution of abandonment for certmin roadsin Rosemont II and Ragged Mountain Farm was adopted by the Board on March 6, 1991, and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court on August 7, 1991: WHEREAS, the Board was requested by a citizen to abandon sections of an old roads not in the State Highway or Secondary System; and WHEREAS, the Board, on September 12, 1990, ordered that this matter be advertised for public hearing in accordance with Virginia Code Section 33.1-157; and W~, afterholding a public hea~ing on NOvember~8,. 1990~-the.'~ Board finding that the said'sections ofroads servenopublic purpose; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED bytheBoard~of Supervisorsof Albemarle County, Virginia, that certain roads in~-Rosemont II and Ragged Mountain Farm (and shown on the attached exhibits) be-abandoned~ to public use as per the following descriptions: The publicroad beginning at the easternmost corner or. Tax Map 74-60; thence ina southwesterly, direction.~as it crosses Tax Map 74-60 and Tax Map 74-61 and intersects the preserved rOad at thesoutheasternmost corner of Tax Map:74-61; thence~ beginning again and cont:inuing-generally southeas? terly along the common border of Tax Map 74-62, 63, 64, 65 with Tax Map 74-68; thence continuing genera!_ly southeas- terty~along the common border of-TaxMap~.74~66and 69; 'thence, continuing generally southeasterlyalong the.-~common, border of Tax Map 74-67 and 70 to a point of conveyance with the southwesterly corners of Tax Map 7t~ 72, 73-and 745 continuin.g generally westerly alon-g the southe=n-border~of~- Tax Map~74-67, 66;-65, 64, 63; thence, generally westerly .as it crosses the~soUthern portion of~TaxMap 74-5 to its intersection with State Route 708. Also, possible expan- sions of~the above roada~those running'parallel--to 'the above describedroads on Tax Map 74-60and~61;- those bisecting Tax Map 74-62 and 63 from the above described roads in a wester- ly directionuntil it intersects with the above roads at the western corner of Tax Map 74-63; those leaving the,~above described road at the northeast corner of Tax Map 74~64 and running southerly to Tax-Map 74~65; thence~ southwesterly until it~intersects withthe above roads at the western cornerof Tax Map74-65; those leaving.the'above described~ road-at the common boundary of Tax Map 74-65, 66,68 and69; thence,a~short distance'~southwest along the~common boundmry line of"Tax Map 74-65 and66; thence,~westerly,over Tax Map ,74-65 until:it intersects with the'road described ~ust~ previously as-crossing Tax Map 74-65} those running parallel to the-above described road on Tax Map 74-69 to the south- western corner~ofTax-Map 74-70; and. those'running paratlei to the~:above~described roads for a short distance southerly. on Tax Map 74-67. - August 7, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 29) In addition, a short section of parallel road just south of the Old McGeehee Road on Tax Map 74-57G, and an obliterated section just east of the relocated road on Tax Map 74-57F, and a short section of relocated road running northeasterly across the southeaste=n corner of Tax Map 74-57D. 83