1991-10-02 277
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on October 2, 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 County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No.~l,' The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
AgendaItemNo. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public.
Mr. Donal Day, a resident of Buckingham Circle, shared some information
with the~Board pertaining to the upcoming referendum on the meals tax. He
stated that he has already talked to the press~ but it might have been better
if he had come to this Board first. He realizes that taxes are necessary and
that different taxes affect people differently, and taxes affect some People
worse' than others. He said that most of Albemarle County's taxes are regres-
sive, and the citizens' ability to pay those taxes is not taken into consider-
ation. He thinks that taxes should reflect one's ability to pay. The economy
affects-people differently~ and the government enforces the rules that allow
for the distribution to take place. He pointed out that sometimes it is not
because people don't work hard that they don't have very much money. It is
because the rules are rigged in such a way that the people who dig ditches do
not make.as much money as bankers. He noted an article from theWashin~ton
Post which indicated that the rich had gotten richer and the poor had gotten
poorer during the last ten years. He said that this fact is so con, non and is
so accepted by the people that it might as well be in the Bible. He added
that the study shows that over the last ten years the economy has increased
the wealth of the wealthy and the poverty of-the poor, andat the same time a
study has been done that shows that state and local taxes fall most heavilyon
those people who are the least able to pay them.
Mr. Day went on to say that a study by Citizens for Tax Justice in
Washington, D.C. shows that inVirginia, the poorest 20 percent pay_ll.8
percent of their available income in local and state taxes, the middle 20
percent pay 9.5-percent, while the richest one percent pays 7.2 percent of
their income in local and state taxes. The burden of taxation is falling more
heavily on those who are least able'to pay. He feels that it. should be the--
role of-~the government to do anything that canbe done to ensure a~vital-
sconomy but at the~same time lessen the burden. He.decided to try to under-
stand taxes-andtry to come up with an idea that the Supervisors had missed'or
some source of income that had been overlooked. He came to the realization
that the Supervisors looked clearly to all 0fthe authority that isavaitable
to.them. The fact isthat, the authority is given to the Supervisors to levy
regressive taxes. He mentioned that there is thepersonal property tax, the
real property tax, but he considers the worst to be the utility consumers, tax.
He noted that a small home which uses 500 kilowatt hours a month pays $4.0Oto
the County and someone with a grandiose home and using 10,000 kilowatt hours a
month is paying exactly the same tax.
Mr.~Day called attention to the motor vehicles license tax. He said that
a license for a jalopy is $20.00,. and a license for'.a Mercedes is $20.00~
Exceptfor the cable television franchise-fee, he.thinks theCoUntyhas done a
thorough job of taking advantage of the authority given to itby the State.
He stated that because~of these regressivetaxes, it~ does not mean that
another=regressive tax makes these any less-heavyto bear~ ~Ifsomeone~pounds
a person.-badly and then gives that.~persona slight tap~.on the head, the person
should not be grateful, but should, in fact, look to some relief. He. next~
278
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
remarked that he turned to the Virginia Department of Taxation's Annual
Report, which contains a detailed listing of where the money comes from and
how it is distributed in income. He wanted to see what characterized
Albemarle County in terms of wealth. He took the total income in 1988, which
showed on the returns of people living in Albemarle County as being $855.0
million. This amount is distributed over the different income classes. It
was found that returns filed in Albemarle County of over $100,000 a year
constitute almost a third of the total income earned in Albemarle County. He
noted that $245.0 million represents those people with incomes over $100,000 a
year. He cannot say how many returns this amount of money constitutes, but
his guess is that there are less than 2000 returns in that category. He then
pointed out that the people who earn zero to five percent earn approximately
one~percentf of th~tota~l income~,~If-~the meals tax, which will generate
$l~.4Million, could be taken from the higher income people, it would constitute
less than one-half of one percent of their income. If this amount of money is
taken from the lower,incomepeople,~it~affectsthemgreatly'~'~
Mr'~ Bowie asked if Mr. Day would be able to show the Board-how to accom-
plish this. Mr. Day answered that he was unable to show how this could be'
done,
Mr. Bowie toldMr. Day that the Board un,derstandswhat he is saying
because the Supervisors have been fighting the same battle. Mr. Day continued
his presentation by saying that~Buckingham County haspeople~at the low end~
and some people at, the highend~of~the salary scale. He,mentioned that there
isn'tquite as muchdifference, in the 'Salary scales in Fluvannaand Greene
· He thinks that Albemarle Countyhas a. serious social wealth, strati-
fication4 His p~rson~t oPinion is that the~wealthy people in Albemarle County
arenot~paying their~fair shar~ ~e then noted-that the same documen~ to~
which he is'referring showed him the land use figures~ In~Rappahannock.~
County~ 40 percent of~its total income represents peoptewith,incomes of over
$~00,000, and the~e is a very large land use assessment program, Of all the
taxes over-which~the Supervisors have authority, an~..where,.relief. ~anbe
provided, the real'estate tax is onethat can p~ovide help for the elderly and
thehandicapped. He stated that with this tax, there is a means test which
makes sure that these people do not make more than $12,000 a year or that
their net,worth is less than $55,000.~':0n the,land.use assessment, Mr..~.Day
says that there is no such means test; If a person can afford to buy land i.n
Albemarle-County today at $3000 or more per acre, and amortgage obtained,
payingthe-~4~centsreal propertytax.rate won!t~have a big-impact Mr..Day
thinksiland use assessmentneeds~tobelooked at carefullyl~ ~He reatizesthe
goals or,this program~ but~at the'~same time,he thinks~that it~has to be
recognized that, there ~.arereally.not.~that many~farmers. Heis unsure~whatthe
total farm~income~ is for AlbemarleCounty. He~believes'the"County'Board
shoUld.try'to relieue its citizens, when new,taxes are designed~ ,He said that
there iscertain~authority~extended~to the. Supervisors by the State.~ but the~
$upervisors~need,~to put.pressure on the. Legislators and join with other.'
counties~around theState to get the authority~.to, go out t~he~peopte who
benefit the most~from society as iris currently constructed. He-said that
some people have a lot of money~, and they are' benefitting a lot more than,-<in
his opinion, people who are working just as hard, and deserve more attention
when. it,comes to tax policies~of this County-.
~ ~Mr~ Kevin Cox stated, that he did a study in the County on uncollected~
revenues. He said,that he tookasampling-, but it did not i~clude~atl of the
growth areas~~ Headded. that the concern should no~. be.about~the~large parcels
immediately outside.of~-thegrowth areas, because the, large parcels~adjacent~t~o
the~growth a~eas~will~beannexed, eventually. He'~handed out information to
theBoard, 'and he. said that the first three page's represent~m~letter f~om Mr,.
Pa, xton Marshall to Mr,~Tom Galloway of the Loudoun County Land, User, Committee,
in,which--Mr,. Marshall~discusses an alternativeto use value taxation.~'He said
that the remainder-of the materia~'given to~Boardmembers isfromtheCounty
Office~Bulilding~ Mr,~ Cox said,that anaLte~nativeto use~ualue~ssit isnow
used in' Albemarle.County, .is use value only~in'~agricultural/forestal districts
with~the open~ space category. He said that use.~alue could then be controlled
in the growth areas. He~,added. that it doesn'thave to be in .the growth areas,
because people who are truly, committed to agricultural/forestal uses will
enter agricultural/forestaldistricts and will meet the commitment and.will
not find ib too diffi~cult to abide.by it. He added thathe has~talked=tosome
279
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
farmers who indicated that basically this sounds good, but their only concern
is about the older farmer who is about to retire. He said that this older
farmer is not going to want to lock up his land for ten years, and Mr. Cox
believes that this can be handled in some way by easing into the program.
Mr. Cox pointed out that the open space values, as set by SLEAC, are too
high. He has talked with the County Assessor, and was told that open space
values are set depending on the use. He said that if someone puts land into
open space, and it is in agricultural use, the class will be considered, and
the use is set accordingly. The open space category allows for parcels that
do not meet agricultural/forestal district sizes to be given the use value tax
break, so use value taxation could be extended to selected parcels inside
growth~ areas'.while'~at~the same time keeping it out of most of the growth
areas. He feels people would be standing in line waiting to create new
agricultural/forestal districts outside of the growth areas since much of the
land that is cUrrently in use 'value.~in the' rural areas could, be'incorporated~
in agricultural/forestal districts~ It would be better~ in' terms,of conserva-
tion, because there will be a~ stronger commitment, to.keep the land in its:
present~ use~, It would also be better for the tax ~base because there, would be
some land where the owners would not want to commit it for ten years. He
commented'that the County. would get the tax money., and he-thinks that it~ would
be- fairly substantial,.~ He remarked that no one .knows~ how. much it_will be~.- and
the 89 parcels that he studied woutd not all necessarily, be eliminated'from
use value, because some of them are probably legitimate agricultural uses and
would-be awarded open space classification. He =thinks that this isa good~~
alternative, and it is.~one that this~Board should consider.
Agenda ~Item No. 5.. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr.. Bain,
seconded by Mrs..~ Humphris,:to accept Items 5.2 through 5.6 on' the consent
agenda.~as information..' (Note: Item
tion~.) Roll was called and the. motion carried by.the ~foltowing recorded?~vote:
AYES; ~ Messrs. Bain, · Bowerman~ Bowie, Mrs. :.-Humphris,. Mr. Perkins-and M~...Way.~
NAYS:: ~.,None,;: - '~
· Item' 5.1. Resolution ,authorizing the .Lease Purchase. o.f school buses:and
education related equipment. The following memorandum dated.September 27,
t991, was-~received from Mr~ Melvin A~ Breeden, -Director
"The approved FY 91/92 School Budget provided for the acquisition of
~' ~h0ol buseS and miscellaneous computer equipment totaling $1.3
million by.~-lease, purchase~
~ .Orders for these items have been. placed and delivery of~ all equipment
.... ~ ~ is scheduled to be completed~by November~.15, 1991. A Request. for
Proposal (RFP) was issued by the Finance. Department to various finan-
ciat ~institutions~in order:-to obtain the best~, financing- option~ for
this- equipment.
An ·agreement has been reached with Central Fidelity Bank to provide a
lease/purchase agreement~ for the-. $1.3 million, ~Terms of the agreement~..
prowide for"interest at the' rate of 6.75 percent with: five equal-
payments of $295,024.-34 ,over the next five years.. This, agreement, as
required by law-, contains- a non-appropriation clause which permits
termination of' this agreement at the end ora fiscal year should~the
Board of Supervisors fail to appropriate, funds., for the annual payment.
Failure to appropriate would require the return of the equipment.
Due~ to recentlitigation, concerning~leaseJpurchase~agreements,~Central
Fidelity Bank and the~'County'S~bond ~counset (Harry FrazieratHuntOn &
Williams) have requestedfthat'the Board~adopt~ a~resolution authorizing
the County~Executive to~ sign~this lease~pUrchase agreement~ This,
procedure..has~been approved by bond counsel."
Mr.-Bain commented.~that-Mr. St. Johnhad, requestedaseparatemotion~
relating to thisresotution. Mr, Bain then moved~approval of Consent. Agenda
280
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Item 5.1, which is a Resolution authorizing the Lease Purchase of school buses
and education related equipment. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. 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 following resolution was adopted by the vote shown above:
RESOLUTION OF BOARD OF SUPERYISORS
OF ALBEMkRLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
R~.I.ATING TO EQUIPMENT LEASE/PURCHASE AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of Albemarle
County, ¥irginia (the "County"), has previously determined to acquire
for use by the County and its citizens the items of personal property
described on,the attachment to this resolution (the "Equipmen~t") and
,has~authorized the County Executive to solicit and receive bids for
the purchase of the Equipment; and
-WHEREAS, Central Fidelity Bank has agreed to purchase the Equip-
ment and to lease it back to the County, such Equipment having an
aggr~gate/p~ncipal' vatue~equal ~ to $1 i~.300!, 000;,-'~,and:: .~:'~w~ ,~.~?,: ~. ~
WH~EAS, based-upon the recommendation of-the. County Executive
after review of the proposals received, the Board has determined to
authorize the acquisition -of the Equipment pursuant to an'. Equipment
.LeaAe/Purchase Agreement. (the "Agreement"), between the County as
Lessee and Central Fidelity Bank as Lessor, in the form presented to
the' County~ to be dated the date of its execution; and
WHEREAS,~.to provid.e_for~ the investment of funds provided by the.
Lessor..-fore, the benefit of the.County pending expenditure of ,such funds
on,the acquisition of the. Equipment by the Lessor, the Board has been
presented with the form of an Escrow Agreement (the "Escrow Agree-
ment''), between-the 'County and Central Fidelity Bank, to"be dated as
of the date of the Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY,* VIRGINIA, AS FOLLOWS:
1. The acquisition of the: Equipment' upon the terms described in
the Agreement'. is-~hereby', approved.
2. The investment of funds upon terms described in the Escrow
Agreement is hereby approved~
.... 3. The'- County~ Executive is hereby authorized and- directed ~to
execute the. Agreement and Escrow Agreement, to .'deliver the' same. to
Central. Fidelity Bank~ to~ execute and deliver' such, other documents,
certificates and:.instruments~ and. take sU'ch~other actions as may be-.~-
necessary to ~carry out:.the intent of this Resolution, to cause .the
acquisition, of'the Equipment, and to cause the County to perform its
obligations.'under.'the,'Agreement and the Escrow Agreement~ The>Agree-
ment"and. Escrow,'Agreement shall' be in'.substantially the forms present-
ed to the Board, with such changes as the CoUnty Executive shall
determine to be in the best interests of~ the County, his execution to
constitute ,.conclusive .evidence of his-approval of such changes.
4. The Board'recognizes~tha't it is not:empowered to make any'
binding commitment' to appropriate funds or to make any payments beyond
the County's current fiscal year. The Board hereby states its intent
to make annual, appropriations sufficient'to make-all~payments'required
under.theAgreement and,reCommends.that, future Boards make such
appropriations throughout the term of the Agreement.
~5. This Resolution. shall-take effect immediately.
ItemS~2. Letter dated. August .22, 1991, from Hugh C. Miller, Director,
Department of HistoricResources, re: Southwest Moun-tains, Rural'Historic
281
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
District, Albemarle County" stating that the district has been placed on the
Virginia Landmarks Register and nominated to the National Register of Historic
Places, was received for information.
Item 5.3. Letter dated September 4, 1991, from Mr. David Gollan, to Mr.
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, expressing appreciation for the
friendly, responsive manner in which the employees of various departments of
Albemarle County had helped he and his wife since moving to the County three
years ago, was received for information.
Mrs. Humphris said this is so unusual that she feels it should be called
to.~everyone_!s.at~ention,. , -
~.. I~tem .5~4. :Memorandum from~Robert W.'Tucker, Jr'., County<Executive, dated
September 25, 1991, re: Draft Minutes Planning and Coordination Council~,
from the August 29, 1991, meeting, stating that there are two areas of inter-
est which address a community effort in looking at the need for a convention
center/arena and the possibility of a residential college along West Main
Street, was received for information. '
.~Mrs. Humphris asked what. was discussed'~'concerning, ptans~ for. an arena.
Mr..Tucker replied that~ there,is no firm~proposai at this time~ but there'~have
beene, discussions between the City' Manager, the President and the Senior Vice
President at the University and himself. He thinks that as the West Main
Street study continues, there~may be an opportunity to interject~ the ~arena
issue,- A location-.is-being conSidered, but no specific site has been select-
ed.. He noted that several years ago there ~as a marketing study completed by
the University which basically indicated that at this time this community
could use a. convention~':=enter.~ oral'arena of that~~' nature. As' plans begin' to';
concrete~ he will.keep this 'Board informed.- '-: " ,' '
Mr; Bain wondered' what area is being discussed relating to an Ivy~Road
corridor. Mr. Tucker~ answered, that the area being considered is from Alderman
Road.. to the Route-250/29 ByPass. He said that this will probably be inclUded
in the Capital Improvement Program..
· Item. 5~5. Letter-dated September 24, 1991', from Mr. James D; Campbell,
CAE, .Executive Director, Virginia Association of Counties, informing the~.Board
that. 'a VACO' Board of Directors' vacancy will occur in-.this region effective
November~, 1991, was received for: information; - ·
,.-.Item 5.6.. Copy of~ Minutes of 'the Planning Commission for.$eptember'lT.,.
199t, was received, for information';
Agenda.Item.No. 6. ZMA-91-04. Forest-.Lakes Associates~ Public Hearing~:~
on.a request to'rezone 356.8 ac from RA, Rtl & PUD-to PUD. Property borders_
Southern, Railroad on E, Rt 643 on-S, Rt 29 on W & Hollymead Subd on N.
TM46,P26E,27,97A,98,110. Rivanna Dist. Property sho~n in Comprehensive-Plan
for lowdensity residential (1-4 du/ac) & medium density residential.(5-10
du/ac);,~a portion is~also in RuralArea II. .(Advertised in.theDaily progress
on,~September 20.and September.26, 1991..) -.-:~'
. Mr~Citimberg~gave~the following~ staff report:
"Petition: Forest Lakes Associates petitions the Board of Supervisors
to..rezone 2~6~2t2~acres~:from. R~l and. PUD',to PUD.(PROFFER) This'',~,' ~,-~
' property is described.'as: '-
...... Tax Map 46, Parcel 110 (8.59 acres zoned R-l)
~Tax Map~46, Parcet~27 (114~80 acres zonedR-1)
~Tax. Map~46, Parcel 26E'(95.30 acres z°ned. R-1)
.Tax Map 46, Parcel-26E (8.30 acres~zoned:PUD)
Tax Map..46, Parcel 26B(9.20 acres zoned. PUD)
282
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
This property is located south and east of Hollymead PUD with limited
frontage on U.S. Route 29 North and Route 643. The property is
bounded on the east by Powell Creek. This land represents the vast
majority of undeveloped residential land in the Hollymead Community in
the Rivanna Magisterial District.
Application Plan: The Application Plan for Forest Lakes South propos-
es 15 residential clusters with a minimum and maximum range of devel-
opment for each cluster (Rezoning Application, p. I¥-6). A maximum of
1200 dwelling units is proposed.
More than one-third of the property would be in open space, while
,~-~esidentiat development-and,-roadways would occupy about 60 percent of
the site. An area of 1.8 acres adjacent to U.S. Route 29 North would
be devoted to (limited) commercial office usage and another site of
five acres adjacent to Route 29 would, be gifted to the~County for
public usage. A detailed summary of land uses follows:
~. , Approximate.- ~
Land.Use: ,-.:. Acreage Percent
Residential Development
(Lots)
(Internal-~Streets)
Commercial Office
Public Service .
Spine Road
Connector Road
Recreation,~Area
Open Space ':
Total
124.6
(101.5)
(23.1),
1..8.,
5.0
17.1
.... 5~0
82.0
236..2
52.8
2.1
7.2
..... 0.3'
2.1
~ .. 34..7
Background': Planning 0fForest Lakes north of the, Hollymead PUD was
set in place by series and, combinations of conventional (proffered)
and planned development rezonings. Development began, in 1989 and has
proceeded ~t,~.a higher rate than, originally anticipated and~isnearing
compietion.-at about-.500, dwetlings. This has accelerated the need to
move forward with the current rezoningvpetition for Forest Lakes
South.~
As was,the case,with the Glenmore PRD, the Planning staff and other
appropriate site review agencies, over a period of time, have had
several' meetings and discussions with,theapplicant asto develop-
mentat'-issue,s., Theinitial rezoning 'submittal was,for-350 acres
accompanied.by.a Comprehensive Plan ampndment to add'area east of
Powell Creek' to the Hollymead Community.~ ~.That Application Plan
reflected and made provision for alignments of the Meadow Creek
Parkway and Timberwood.BoUlevard as, shown, in-the:County'=s Comprehen-
sive Plan.
However, the ¥irginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), stated'that
the~alignmentsas shoWnin theComprehensive Plan did not correspond
to thec adopted'CATS~Study. VDOT further declinedto review any~plan
or, traffic study which was not consistent with the CATS Study. Staff
wrote in part to the, applicant that:
Subsequent to the Julg 3, 1991, Site Review Committee meeting;
had discussionwith other d~partment~staff and VDOT. Given~the
uncerta~nt~ as to the future alignment ofthe proposed Meadow
Creek Parkway, it wasstaff's recommendation and ~our~agreement
that propert~ east ofPowell~-Creekwouldbe deteted, f~om the
rezoning petition'at this t~me. More specific!reason~ for
~ staff's.~recommendation follow:
VDOT will review onlH the Meadow Creek ParkwaU alignment as
depicted inthe:CATS?,Stud~ and neither alignment shown.on,~.:.
the,ApplicatiOn Plan-is acceptable~to VDOT;
The~alignment~depicted in the CATS Studp would traverse
several areas shown in the Application Plan for residential
development and could result in additional roadwa~ costs as
283
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
well as additional intersections to the Parkway. (It is
our thinking at this time that if the CATS alignment
remains unchanged, then the Parkway would become the
eastern boundary of the growth area, if expanded, and
Forest Lakes South should have one access point to the
Parkway.)
c. A traffic study which incorporates the Parkway is likely to
prove significantly more complex than a study which would
deal only with Forest Lakes South traffic. VDOT would
insist that 'through traffic' be incorporated in such
study.
In closing on this issue, while staff favors the compre-
hensive approach which you have attempted, issues related
to the Meadow Creek Parkway will take~signif, icant time..to
resolve~ In an attempt to move~ this- matter forward, the
Board of Supervisors recently authorized consultant study
of the County's .preferred route. -
The Application Plan was subsequently amended to delete 114 acres east
of Powell Creek. Likewise, the Comprehensive Plan amendment is not
being pursued at this time.
Staff Recommendation': The Planned Development. Approach-Generally and
the (modified) P.tannedUnit DevelopmentDistrict-SpecificaI.ty are
appropriate to the Forest Lakes South Concept. Existing zoning is
,inappropriateto achieve housing.variety and residential densities
recommended by-the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends approval of
ZMA-91-O4. togetherwith acceptance of the applicant's, proffers.
At the time, under Section 8.5'.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Forest
Lakes South petition was forwarded to thePlanning Commissionwhich
'Shall proceed to prepare its recommendations to the Board of Supervi-
sors,' and specifically, 'recommendations of the Commission shall
include findings, as to: -
a'. The suitability'of.the tract for the.general type of the PD
district Droposed in terms of: relations to the Comprehensive
Plan; physical characteristics of the land; and itsrelations to
surroundingarea~ ~
.The Forest Lakes South,PUD adequately reflects recommendations of
the Comprehensive;Plan related to the. HollymeadCommunity.
The Application Plan favorably reflects the intent of-Section 4.7
'Regulations Governing Open Space' of the Zoning~Ordinance,'(as
.well,as the textual recommendation-of,the, unadopted.iOpenSpace
Plan) by inclusion~of areas sensitive to development~into thePUD
open spaces. Effort has been made to accommodate~devetopment
.while:ensuring a. respect for the natural features and environmen-
tal sensitivity of the site.
lOcations, which relate well to existing-development as well as to
continue acommunity-wide design theme. Open space linkages
would integrate open space areas of the Hollymead PUD and North
Forest Lakes'. . . '
Relations to major roads~ utilities, public facilities and
services; .
Planning forinternaI public utilities is acceptable to the.
Albemarle County ServiceAuthority~ Adequacy of fireflow is,
undetermined; alternative methods, may berequired.
Due to unresolved issues related to future road alignments, a
traffic study will not be required' as a precedent to review of
the Forest,"Lakes.SouthPUD~ Transportation issues would be
acceptably resolved, prior;to actual_development.
284
October 7, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Scheduled improvements to U.S. Route 29 North would occur about
midway to the applicant's anticipated build-out.
Access improvements to U.S. Route 29 North including crossover
relocation, turn lanes and, (if warranted), signalization would
be provided by the developer.
Powell Creek Drive from Hollymead Drive to the Forest Lakes South
spine road would be reconstructed and extended by the developer.
Phasing of such improvement together with other controls would be
designed to minimize construction traffic within the Hollymead
PUD.
The five-acre site to be dedicated for public service could be
used for one or more public facility needs as identified in the
Community Facili,~ies Plan (i.e.,:police satellite station; fire
station;branch library)~ This location appears satisfactory for
any of these uses.
Adequac~ of evidence of unified control and suitability of any
proposed~agreements~ contracts~ deed restrictions, sureties,
dedications, contributions~ 8uarantees, or other instruments~ or
the need for such instruments or f~r'amendment in those proposed~'
At the request of the~appticant,~ the Zoning'and Planning staffs: ~
have assisted in review of proffer language in aneffort to
afford definition of terms, consistency with regulatory language
and the like.
Specific modifications in PD or~Keneralre~ulations'as applied:'.to
theparticular~icase,'basedlon determination~that~suchmodifica-
tions are necessar¥..or~ustified by demonstration that~the, public
purposeof-the PD or ~eneral reEulations as applied would be
satisfied to at least an equivalent de~ree by such modifications.
Staff:recommends.waiver of Section.'~20.9.4 which prohibits issu-
ance oflcommercial/service buitdingpermits prior to issuance of
building permits for SO;percent~of the-dwe,tti~gs~
Lotting. configuration asproposed by the. rezoning,:application
text: Exhibit IV. proposes modification of.Section 4~ 11.3 of the
Zoning Ordinance-. Staff .recommends approval subject to fire
official aPProval of fire protection requirements together with
simplified requirements consistent with comments from the Depart-
merit oral.Zoning dated JU!~ 3, 199t~'~
introductory.
Planned: Unit'.' DeV~l°pment (P~)/Zoni~: ' ;As-stated~. in~_ the '
letter,.~of 'the'.Re~oning App~l-ication, Forest Lakes Assoc.~ates purchased
735 acres from Dr. Charles Hurt. in 198.7 The:northern:3851adres
(i.e., the current Forest Lakes development)had been.rezoned by Dr.
Hurt and carried proffers as to residential density, internal road~
linkages and limitation of access points to Route ~29-North and Proffit
Road. -Dr..~Hurt, had' sought a higher residential~ density which was
supported by' staff, however, issues of road design were not resolved
with YDOT. (This prompted the Board-of~.Supervisors_ to .request a
policy..chang~ by VDOT which would allow phased road improvement.
After continued-effort, the County was. at least partially successful
in getting: a revised YDOT policy.) Forest Lakes Associates has
developed the northern, area in accordance with the residential prof-
fers resulting in',an .overall density lower than recommended by the
Comprehensive Plan,
The. Forest, Lakes:South property is currently zoned for densities
significantly .lOwer than recommended'by the Comprehensive Plan~.. In
discussions with staff as to.the best approach to. increase density~ it
was determined.that PUD zoning offered advantages to the general
public and deVeloper which may..not be- realizable ': through, conventional
zoning or conventional zoning with proffers, particularly for a
project of this Scale. MOre specifically:
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
285
The text of Section 8.0, Planned Development Districts - General-
ly, allows staff direct negotiation with an applicant to resolve
matters of public concern, whereas with proffered zoning, all
proffers are to be voluntary (As with the Glenmore proposal, the
applicant has submitted proffers to indicate unilateral action as
opposed to agreement). As an example in this case, the staff was
enabled to negotiate changes to the Application Plan reflective
of concerns received to date from Hollymead residents (See
Proffers 5 & 6 in Rezoning Application, p. V-2 as well as Plan-
ning staff comment in Attachment A [on file]).
Generally, 'planned development districts are intended to provide
for variety and'flexibility, in design necessary to implement the
varied goals and objectives of the county as set forth in the
comprehensive plan' and furthermore ~in view of the substantial
publicadvantages-ofa planned.development, theseregulations are
intended to.~encourage the.planneddevelopment~Japproach inareas~
appropriate .in terms of locationandcharacter~'
Specifically, Section 20.1, Intent, Where~Permitted, of the
Planned Unit Development districtstates, among other things,
that'.as:described by. the comprehensive plan, PUD~districts are
intended to serve as neighborhoods ormini-neighborhoods,within
designated communities and the urbanarea' and further that tit
is intended that~theseregulations provide flexibility in resi-
dential development by providing for a mix of residential uses
with appropriate non-residential uses, alternative forms of
housing~ flexibility in internal relationships of design elements
and, in'appropriate cases, increases in gross residential densi-
ties over.that provided in, conventional districts.'
As to more'specific comments~relative-toPUD~ regulations~andthis
proposal:
The applicant ,is petitioning for amaximum development~of 1200
dwellings, however, does not anticipate-exceeding 800 'dwellings.
The request'for 1200units~is to provide for maximum flexibility
to respond'to changesin .the housing market withoutsubSequent~
rezoning. That~isto say, to approach 1200dwellings onthe 125
acressiated~.for residential development wouldrequire signif,
icant, townhouse,~apartment or other multi-family areas. While
the appiicant proposes:a eentra!, active recreational complex,
to~ lots should be..conveniently providedin higher density areas
in accord~with~Section~4.t6 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant proposes 1.8 acres for commercial office develop,
ment. .PUD regulations provide for commercial/service uses.~(i.e.,
C-l; CO) to be developed in proportion to the number of dwellings
in the PUD. In this case, the Zoning Ordinance would permit a
floorarea~in the range.of 16,000to24,~000-square feet. While
the commercial office site,does:not compiy..with locational'~
standards~iof,'Section 20.9~t(i.e.., internally oriented; external
vehicular access~to'be discouraged), it appears to be~a reason~
able,use in the proposed location.. The applicanthas requested,
waiverOfSection 20.9~:~4.Which-requires thatbuilding permits be
issued for'.80percent or.the dwellings prior to issuance of~
permitS~for commercial/service, uses.' A~ similar request~as?
approved for the commercial area~of~Mitl CreekI PUD,.,Given:the
comparatively~smallsite and. restricted usage,~staff supports the
waiver request (Staff estimated that the Mill Creek site could
accommodate 60,000 square feet of/building on its six~ acres).
The applicant, has proffered limitations'as to useswithin the
residential areas and on the commercial site.. Staff.opinion is
that the restrictions~are reasonable and recommendsacceptance_of
those proffers (See Proffer, 3 of~Rezoning Application, p~ ~-1 as
well~asPlanning and Zoning staff~comments in Attachment
file]). ' -
286
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
The applicant estimates an eight-year period to build-out. This
would represent 100 to 150 dwellings per year which approximates
development of north Forest Lakes.
Staff opinion is that the planned development approach has success-
fully offered opportunity to resolve developmental issues related to
surrounding properties. Forest Lakes South, representing about
one-third of the residential area of the Hollymead Community, concep-
tually constitutes a 'neighborhood' appropriate to PUD zoning. Some
areas of Forest Lakes South may be developed to densities in excess of
those literally recommended by the Comprehensive Plan, however,
overall density will be compatible to Comprehensive Plan recommenda-
~tions. -As ~i~t!:be'~described~-:later in this report, and particularly in
relation to roadways, flexibility of design will be a key factor to
success of this project and achievement of County planning efforts.
Further, stall, opinion,s tha~, the Planned DevelopmentApproaCh
Genera~lp, and the (modified)Planned Unit Development District-Spe-
cificallp are~appropriate to the Forest Lakes South concept. Existing
zoning is inappropriate to achieve housing varietp and residential
densities recommended bp the. ComprehensivePlan.
Planning Commission Recommendations to the. Board of Supervisors:
Section8.5.3 of PlannedDevelopment Districts- Generally. requires an
applicant for a planned development zoning district 'to meet,with the
planning staff.and other qualified officials to review the application
plan and original proposal prior to submittalS!',in order to ,assist in
bringing, theapplication""into conformity with-,varioUs planning and
zoning regutationsand-pOlicies~.and to determine~appropriate varia-
tions from such.regulations~and policies..~
At this time, underSection 8~5.4 of,the~Zoning Ordinance, the Forest
Lakes South,~petition' is forwarded to, the Planning~Commission which
'shall proceed to prepare itsrecommendations to the Boa~d'~ of Super
visors,' and specifically, recommendations of. the Commissionshall
include findings as to:
a. The suitabilityof the tract for .the general~type ofthe~PD
district proposedin terms of: relations to the~Comprehensive
Plan; physical characteristics of the land; and its ~elations to
surrounding areas;~
b. Relations~to majorroads, utilities,~pubtic facilities and - ~ services;~
c. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any
~propo~sed agreements, contracts, deed~res~rictions, sureties, ·
..... dedications,.~contributions, guarantees~, or other~ instruments, or
~i.~.the need~for such,'instruments~or~
. proposed; and
d. Specific modifications in PD or general regulations as applied to
the particularcase, based~on determinationthat such modifica-
tions~are*necessary or justified~by demonstration that the public
purposes;of PD or general-regulations as applied would be satis-
fied to at leastan equivalent degree by such modifications.
Based' on suchfindings, the Commission, shall recommend~approval of
such PD amendment'as proposed, approval conditioned upon stipulated
modifications, or disapproval.
The remainder of this:report will address those various considera-
tions. Items a. and b. will be.discussed in the context of the
Compr. ehensiYe Plan:, comments of,the.SiteReview'Committee, and. com-
ments.receivedtodate from the public. Item c. is addressed inpart
by Section V of the applicant's rezoning submittal and will also be
addressed under StaffRecommendation. Item d. wilt-be:specifically
addressed underStaff,Recommendation.' , "
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
287
Comprehensive Plan: Specific recommendations of the Comprehensive
Plan for the Hollymead Community applicable to this proposed develop-
ment are as follows (Comprehensive Plan, p. 183-184):
No commercial uses' are to be established on either side of Route
29 up to the entrance of the existing Hollymead Subdivision. It
is'the intent of the Plan that the large regional use area south
of the Rivanna River not extend north of the river on the east
or west side of Route 29. Service areas as shown on the Plan
are sufficient for the foreseeable future.
The proposed 1.8 acre commercial office area has been discussed
previously under Ptanned~Unit~Development (PUD) district. While the
commercial office area may or may not 'provide convenience services
primarily for the residents of the PUD' (Section 20.9.1) the area is
of appropriate scale and logical location~ Atless than one, percent
of the. PUD area, it is not a !large regional use' as referred~to by
the Comprehensive Plan~ This.should be viewed asa site specific
request related to and allowable under PUD provisions and not as
precedent for~future commercial rezonings in the area.
Preserve the stream valleys and theirtributary drainage?wau,
plus_ adjacent areas of steeply sloping~terrain~ as an openspace
network. Thisnetwork is designed to tie~'into-.futureresiden-
tial deVetopmen~areas inHoltymead.
As statedunder 'Physical Characteristics~of the Site"and.under
~Relation. to.~S~rrOun~ding Areas'~ the. ApplicationPlanadequately
addresses these issues. -
.provide. new landscaping with development along. Route 29'North.
Development plans'along Route 29 North are to be sensitive to
its status as an entru corridor to the Community and the Urban
Area. .
U.S.~Route 29North is a.designatedEntrance,,Corridor,(Eg)'district
along whichvisible.development_is subject to review.~'and approval.by
the Architectural Review.Board;
Areas of medium and high density residential are to be located
intern~lt~ east of Route 99.North~ They are located' so.as~to
access theinternat road. s~stemand shoutdnothave.~direct
~"access toRoute29 North. ~'The medium density'areaadjacent to
the Ridgewood Mobile Home Park is envisioned as a possible
expansion~area for-~the park~ ', '
Ail development inForest Lakes' South wouldbe accessed to-Route:'~29 by
the spine road~ The applicant does not propose,expansion of the,~
Ridgewood Mobile,Home park.
Staff opinion is,thatthelForest~Lakes South PUD adequately'~reftects
recommendations~ ofthe Comprehensive. Plan.
Physical Characteristics of the Site: In approaching the physical
design of Forest Lakes South, a primary focus was to define the
physical and environmental constraints to~devetopment and'to respect
theseconstraints in the development proposal~ Exhibit ¥I~of the
Rezoning.Apptication~discusses environmentalaspects as~follows:
Slope Analysis
Soils Analysis
,VegetationAnalysis - - ~ · · ' ·
_ Hydrologic Analysis ~ .
Wetland Analysis
Erosion Control
Wildlife Habitat ...... '.
Inventory mapping (to be presented at the public hearing; also see
reduced map in, ExhibitVI):
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
288
Occasionally flooded soils
Slopes of 25 percent or greater
Larger drainage swales
Depth to bedrock - less than 60 inches
Depth to bedrock - less than 30 inches
Ridge line/ridge line view
Potential non-tidal wetland
One hundred year flood plain elevation
The Planning Commission has been presented with a draft Open Space
Plan which is incomplete as to mapping for designated growth areas.
Staff is unaware of any historic or other specific features located
~.-withinFores~Lakes South. sen~sitive areas identified by the appli-
..cant's environmental analysis have been incorporated into the PUD open
space areas and will remain undisturbed to the maximum practical
extent. Comments. of theWater Resources Manager are reflected in the
Application Plan and willbe incorporated into subsequent reviews.
Staff opinion, is that the Application Plan favorably reflects the
intent of Section~-4.7 ,Regulations Governing Open Space' of the Zoning
Ordinance '~{as well as the textual recommendation of the unadopted open
space plan.) by inclusion of areas sensitive to development into the
PUD open spaces. ~.Effort has been made to accommodate development
while ensuring a,i, respect,for~the natUral features and environmental
sensitivity of the site.
Relation to Surroundin~ Areas: The five-acresite to be dedicated to
the County for~public usage and'the 1.8~acre~site proposed for commer-
cial office uses are>~t'ogically.,'located,'~adjacent toRoute~29~North and
would'have access~restricted totheinternalspine~.'road (unless,,,
otherwise approvedby, the Planning COmmission at time of site.plan
approval). ' ~
Inresponse.to concerns re£eived from Hotlymead residents, theappli-
cant has proffered.that~Rezoning Apptication~,,~.p~
o No lot within the.property willfronton or..have.,~direct access to
any roads~within the Hollymead~PUD; and
o , 'Residential Areas 7 and 8 as shown on the Application Plan for
Forest Lakes South made by-ClowerAssociates, Inc. will'be
developed with,,single~family, detached-dwelling units~
As stated, at'.the outset of, the staff~'-report under 'PlannedUnit Devel-
opment (PUD) District~' Forest' LakesSouth is a.portion of the origi-
nal, ~ 1000, acre H011ymead~estate whichwas planned, in its'entirety as
a PUD, however, only the first phase of some 270 acres received
rezoning approval. The Phase I Hollymead PUD. was approved for a
maximum, of~]40, dwellings, however, fewer~.than'~50.Ounits-were~.con?'
structed. (Residueacreage from Phase. IHollymeadis to be incor-
porated in Forest Lakes South). The Application Plan. provides a
continuationof~,theoriginal Hollymeadplanningeffortby providing
open space linkages~to Hollymead an~ northForest Lakes. The Applica-
tion Plan makes provision forcontinuation of Powell Creek Drive to
the ForestLakes South spine road as envisioned in the original
approval. (This will-bediscussedlater?in this~report). The Appli-
cation- Plan' p~ovides reasonable land uses~'~in logical ,locations which
relate well to existing development as well as to continue a-communi-
ty-wide, design.theme'~, Open space, linkages.woutdintegrate open space-
areas of, Hollymead PUD and NorthForest.Lakes
Public Utilities:, The Forest Lakes South property is~within the
AlbemarleCounty Service. Authority service area~boundary-for-public
water, and public sewer servicer ~Public water is avaitable~froma
l~-~nch diameter"main.at Route~.29 North. -,There.are.-no~fire hydrants
in close proximityto'the site. and, therefore, no flow test informa-
tionis available,,, Should-hydrant flow.be inadequate for the type of
dwelling unit,%ordeveloPment proposed~ alternatefire protection'-
measures may be required.
289
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
An existing 21-inch diameter sewer interceptor is located at Powell
Creek. This interceptor owned by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authori-
ty (RWSA) provides public sewer service to areas south of Proffit
Road,
Initially, the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) recommended
that gravity sewer service be provided through the project. Instead,
and to the satisfaction of ACSA, the applicant proposes discontinuance
of an existing sewage pump station, construction of a larger capacity
pump station, and service by force main for the majority of the
development to the Powell Creek interceptor. Planninp for internal
public utilities is acceptable to the ACSA. Adequacy of fireflow is
..~..--undetermined~a2ternat!ve me~hods may be required.
Roads: As stated earlier under 'Background', the major planning
problem encountered has.been in regardto~roadways. Regarding~the
future of the Meadow CreekParkway andlTimberwood~Boulevard, the
applicant is literally between the CATS study and the County's Com-
prehensive Plan. Developing traffic studies to include all options
would be extremely expensive and not all studies would be reviewed by
YDOT~~ Therefore, at this-time, the applicant-has not. pUrsued~-a
traffic study. Staff recommends that the. zoning petition be allowed
to proceed without.requirementof a traffic~study for the following
reasons: ~ ~
The applicant had made provisionfor roadway networks consistent
with the ComprehensivePlan in~theinitial, submittal~and has
stated a willingness to ~ontinue to cooperate once alignments are
determined. Such cooperative efforts should be encouraged;
traffic studycould be developed based:'on, the current Appli-
,cation~Plan, however, such an approach.has drawbacks:
Provision for connections to either the: CATS or Comprehen-
sive. Plan alignments would result in requirement of a new
traffic study by VDOT and could.result:in redesign of the
internal spineroad~.~ -
Staff will recommend (and the applicant is agreeable'to) an
internal road connection between South Forest Lakes and
Hollymead, however,-that determination is to be~made~bythe
Planning~CommisSion'andBoard of Supervisors. A traffic
Study withsuch an internal connection is morecomplicated--
todevelop than a study with, only one accessto external
roads (i.e. Route29 North);
VDOT will not review road plans for any portion ofthis develop-
ment until ultimate, roadway design has been determined by an
approved~traffic study~ Therefore, under, provisions or, the
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, no final site'plan or subdivi-
sion platcan beapproved until, roadway matters-are~resolved;
4. Should the applicant's development schedule proceeds, resolution
of external.roadway alignments,~ a, phased roadway construction
agreement could be executed. (This may be otherwise, necessitated
by the developer',s, requests'for a maximum~ of, 1200, dwelling units
versus an~anticipated construetion of 800 dwelling units):~ Such
an agreement~would provide.that?the internal spine, road~be
designed as a four.lane divided roadway with right-ofrway re-
served accordingly, but that actual construction be based on
realized~development. Issues of internal intersectional, treat-
ment would ~atso be, included in,~such an agreement~ This approach
has been-~employed successfully in' both north Forest~Lakes and the
Mill Greek~'I PUD. ~' ~ ~. ~ ,-
As to.,Route 29 North, ~VDOT has stated.,that the existing-crossover
would, need to be relocated slightly to the south. U.S. Route 29 North
from the South, Fork Rivanna River to. Airport Road-is. scheduled-for
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
29O
improvement from 1995-97 in the adopted Primary System Improvement
Program. The roadway would be improved to a six-lane divided
facility.
Staff recommends that Powell Creek Drive be reconstructed and extended
from Hollymead Drive to the Forest Lakes South spine road. Reasons
for this recommendation are as follows:
Internal connection would provide safe and convenient access to
the Hollymead school(s). School buses and parental traffic could
access the school without traveling Route 29 North. You may
recall substantial public concern about bus safety which resulted
in'access improvementS:to<Route 29 North at Hollymead.
The Zoning Ordinance requires a second means of access for
developments!of 50, dwellings or, more. ~Connection to~:Powelt-Creek
Drive appears~to be themostpractical method~of prowiding
secondary access. (This would also provide a second means of
access to Hollymead residents).
The original Hollymead PUD~envisioned:such connection and, in~
fact,-was~included in the conditions of that PUD, requiring that
the right-of-way on (Powell Creek Drive) be 80 feet in the future
exten,sion.of, thisroad:northward to the ProffitRoad, and,south-
erly to',Route 643.
Given the current .development of the Hollymead ,PUD, staff ,would
anticipate usage, of'the Powetl Creek connector-: 1) primarily by
school-oriented traffic; or 2) as an alternative means of access to
Route 29 North if the Forest,Lakes South spine road or, Holtymead Drive
is out.:'of service~. Future~ uses in the.~commercial frontagel of~.
Hollymead PUD could draw additional traffic~
Powell, CreekDrive from Hollymead Drive to Poe Lane is currently
constructed to accommodate 250 vehicle trips per day; in 1986 it,
Carried 255',vehicle .trips per' day. Holtymead~Dri~e .from'-'Powetl 'Creek
Drive ..to Route 29:North currently carries an estimated 3300-to:3400
vehicle trips per day and was designed for 3000 vehicle, trips .per.:.day;
Connection:..of. Powell Creek Drive to 'Forest .Lakes: South- spine road
could reduce school-oriented traffic from Forest Lakes South on
Hollymead Drive by about fifty percent.
As to the effects- of. increased traffic in:.the- Hollymead~ PUD, staff
offers the.-fOllowing comments:
o.- ,:. Existing Powell: Creek .Drive fromm. Poe Lane.-to Hottymead: Drive
would~ need: to be reconstructed;'
Hollymead:Drivefrom Powell Creek Drive'to Route 29,North would
be adequatetoaccommodate 4000~vehicle trips per day-by in-
creased~pavement~-strength.. Beyond,400Ovehicle tripsper~day,.~
additional shoulder andpavement width improvements would be
No lots inHollymead PUD have direct access to Powelt Creek
Drive. Fourteen lots (12 served, by shared drives) have direct
access to Hoilymead Drive. An off-road, paved pedestrian/bikeway
existsalong Hollymead~Drive. Therefore, traffic~ increase~on
,Hollymead!Drive shoutd,,have minimal effect on Hollymead res-
idents;
Whether.or not the Powell.Creek Drive connection is made, traffic
will increaseon Hollymead Drive;
g concern~received.froma Hollymead7resident is that,construction
trafficwoutd?use-Hollymeadroads.if~thePowelt Creek ~Drive',
connection is'.made. Once placed intoservice as,a public road,
no control over who uses the road can be exercised. However, the
Powell Creek Drive connection need not bemade until 50 dwellings
are occupied and, furthermore, the developer can post the roadway
against construction traffic prior to,.~q)OT acceptance.
291
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
Staff recommends that:
Due to unresolved issues related to future road alignments, a
traffic study not be required as precedent to review of the
Forest Lakes South PUD. Transportation issues would be accept-
ably resolved prior to actual development.
2. Scheduled improvements to U.S. Route 29 North would occur about
midway to the applicant's anticipated build-out; however, access
improvements to U.S. Route 29 North including crossover reloca-
tion, turn lanes, and (if warranted) signalization would be
provided by the developer.
Powell Creek Drive from Hollymead Drive to the Forest Lakes South
spine road would be reconstructed and extended by the developer.
.-.~.~.iPhasing.;.of~.such'..improvement together with other controls would be
designed to minimize construction traffic within Hotlymead PUD.
Fiscal-Impact to Public Facilities: At.the request of the Board of
Supervisors, Planning'~staff is reviewing rezoning requestsfor their
fiscal.impact on-public and transportation facilities. This analysis
is limited to those rezonings that have some affect on facilities
identified in'the Capital Improvements ProgramorSix-Year~Road
Construction Plans..The staff analysis provided is only for those
projects for~which:the potential additionalpoputationwill likely
affect the capacity of these facilities and where the staff has a
reasonableunderstanding of the capacities and service standards for
these facilities.- No cost impact could be determined for Meadow Creek
Parkway, Timberwood Parkwayor Route.29 improvements since the. ulti~
mate location, design andcapacity for both Meadow Creek and
Timberwood~:~and~:their. uttimate impact to traffic volumes onRoute 29
have not been determined at this time.
The.,fo~lowing are-the remaining:facilities which.will.~be;'affected by
this rezoningrequest:
1. Schools:
-New High School ($26~400,000)
-Albemarle High School:Phase IRenovation ($6,068,140)
-Broadus Wood Elementary School ($2,987,5.11)
-New Middle School - ($9,268~000)
2, Northside.Library ($300,000)
These are discussed in more.detail below:
1. Schools-Based-on the multipliers currently used by the County
to project enrollment, the total additional students are antic-
ipated to be 267 elementary~ 127 middle, and 146 high school
students based:on maximum build-out of 1200units. At the
project,s build-out of 800units, the additional students gener-
ated are 143 elementary, 68 middle, and 78 high school.
Costs-attributed to,this, development based_onthe'-proportion of
additional!studentsto.:school capacity for both build-out.~scenar-
ios are-listed belows:
Project.(Total Cost). at 800
Broadus Wood ($2,987,511) $385,528
New Middle ( 9,268~000) 840,276
New H.S./AHS Reno.(32~468,140) 556~608
TOTAL ($44,~23,651) $1,782~412
at.1200
$ 719,832
1,509,339
1,041,856
$3,271,027
Northside Library -~.This proposaL, is considered~..to-be in,the
seruice, area-of, the new~Northside~Regional.Library. There is a
$300,008 project in the FY '91-92 to~FY '95~96 CIP.. Based on the
proportionate impactto the library capacity, the~proportionate
share of this project is $58,555 at build-out of 1200 dwelling
units, and'S31,282 at. total build, out;of 800.units.
292
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Broadus Wood ($ 2,987,511)
New Middle ( 9,268,000)
New H.S./AHS Reno. (32,468,140)
Northside Library ( 300,000)
$ 385,528 $ 719,832
840,276 1,569,339
556,608 1,041,856
31,282 58,555
$1,813,694 $3,389,582
Because of the very general nature of this analysis, staff is not
recommending any action based on these estimates. They are presented
for the Commission/Board's information concerning the fair share
determination of a particular development's impact on facilities based
on the cost of proposed improvements and without regard to revenue
-.~.sourcesand~proportilonate Share~of revenues generated by the
development.
T~applicant will be providing an updated fiscal impact analysis
which willbe based onthe'same facility improvements/costs as out-
lined~by staff, but also~include information.on'projected~revenues
generated by the. development. Two analySes, will be run, one at a
build, out of, 800 units, the second at ~ !200 ~it buildqout..
The applicant is proffering to contribute $1000 per dwelling unit of
800 dwellings' to either~ expand the capacity of Hollymead Elementary
Schoot~or construct a~new school in the northern area or.the-County.
If the maximumproffered build-out is achieved (120Q units), a total
of $400,000 would-be available for elementary school capacity expan-
s ion,
The applicant has also proffered to donate approximately five acres to
the County for public use/facilities. The County's Community Facil-
it:i~s?~'Plan identifies several facility~needs in':this portion or,the
County including:
~ Police' satellite station .....
- Branch library
At.'this time,, a police satellite station~is considered'the highest
priority facilit~ needed, in..the Hollymead"area~. The:proffered'..site is
considered'a proper' location for .any of'/the above-noted'~' facilities¥.
Other contributions to public facilities and utilities include:
construction of a connector road to Poe Drive and upgrading Poe Drive
to Powell-Creek Drive to-meet VDOT design standards;', reconstruction of
sewer~ pump Station with 50 percent excess capacity; and, development
of. a greenway corridor accessible to: the~ general~'public along Powell
Creek. This~-greenway is consistent with the unapproved draft of the
Open Space Plan and recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan.
RECOmmENDATION: This" ~ezoning request is consistent with the Land Use
Plan for the. Hotlymead Community and the Comprehensive Plan Growth
Management. Policy of encouraging growth in designated growth areas.
staff opinion is that this..development¢ will not'encourage additional
development that~ would ' not. otherWise.:ha~e occurred elsewhere in.the
Count~. Consideration of the Fiscal Impact of Development. needs~, to be
balanced against considerations of the County's Growth Management'~
Policy. Excessive:development exactions could have'the effect of
discouraging utilization of the holding capacit~ of growth areas and,
thus., potentially lead to accelerated' development in the RuraI.' Areas.;
Consistent.with identified:.County capital needs, it'is
that ~the applicant~'.s proffers identified above: be:accepted.~
Mr,;,'~:?~.i'li,~h~cg.~ saidl.the Planning Commission~ at its :meeting on Septem~ ~
bet 17,. 199,1, unanimously..,recommended approval~ of: ZMA-91-04 with the.six
proffers dated August 13~ 199!, and two additional proffers submitted at the
meeting on September 12,~ · The proffers read as follows:
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
293
The development of the residential portion of the property shall
not exceed 1200 dwelling units, provided however, that once the
density exceeds 800 dwelling units the owner shall contribute at
the time a certificate of occupancy is issued for each dwelling
unit in excess of 800 units the sum of $1000.00 per unit to an
escrow fund to be established by Albemarle County to either
expand the capacity of Hollymead Elementary School or to con-
struct a new school in the northern area of the County of
bemarle, Virginia.
2. Upon the request of Albemarle County, Virginia, to donate by gift
to Albemarle County or its designee, subject to items of record
~ affecti~.g~title, ~for Such, public use facilities as the County may
· select, a parcel of approximately five (5) acres as shown on the
Application Plan for Forest Lakes South made by Clower Associ-
ates, Inc., provided~the owner may require reasonabte~.,visual
screening/buffering of' the five (5) acres
3. Except. for the, five (5) acres described in.Proffers2 above, the
development of the property will,be limited .to those-uses.allowed
by right,under Section 20.3.1 and.Section 20.4.1(2)~. of the-Zoning
Ordinance of~Albemarle County, .Virginia.~. Further, under Section
20~4~1(2) of the~ Ordinance, the~uses permitted by right under
Section~ 23~O,; Commercial Office (CO), will be limited to Section
23.2.1(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), (9), and (11). To be exclud-
ed from use by~ special use permit under Section 20.3~2 of the
O-~dinance are Section -.20.3.2 (3) 'and (7). To be~ excluded_ from
use by special'~use"~permit under Section 23.2.2. of the ,Ordinance,
are Section 23~2.2~(t),~(~),~' (4), (~).~ and (8).
In the event-s.that at least~10 percent' oflthe~ dwelling, lunits
stated~ in. Proffer. 1 have, not been built and a certificate of
occupancy issued within ten (10) years from the date of final
approval, of this Zoning Map ~Amendment, then'~the' undersigned
applicant-agrees to waive its rights under Virginia. Code' Section
t5.1'49t(at) ,- ~ ' ~
5. No lot within~ the property will front on or have direct access to
any roads~Within the Hollymead PUD. . - ·
6. Residential Areas 7 and8 as shown' on the-ApPlication. Plan for
Forest ~Lakes South .made by Clower~ AssoCiates, Inc.-will~ be.
developed with sin~gle~fami~ly detached dwelling units-.
7. We agree to provide recreational facilities in accordance with
Section .4-16 for multi-family areas. ,remote 'from' the central
recreational' area.
8. We agree to reconstruct and extend Powelt~Creek Drive fromHolly-
mead Drive to the Forest.::Lakes. Spine road. provided the-.necessary
rightrof'way:exists or can be obtained at no cost to Forest Lakes
Associates.
Mr. Cilimberg in summarizing the staff's report noted the displays behind
the Board members, to:which he would~be referring.
Mr. Bain asked Mr,.~.Cilimberg to point~ out Powelt Creek on the map, and
Mr. Cilimberg did so. Mr'. Bain said the request does not include the area
below Powell Creek. Mr. Cilimberg agreed. He said'~a suitability analysis was
originally' done-, when a larger area~was rezoned, which was subsequently scaled
back by the applicant.
In response~to Mr~ Cilimberg'scomments about the~commercialoffice
developmen~attracting external-traffic, Mr.~Bain asked if~discussions~had
been held relating to~a~commerciat office development being put. internally to
the site. Mr. Cilimberg said this was discussed, but it did not relate well
to the rest~of the residential devp~%pPmen~ The applicant preferred, because
of the layout of the parcsi, to have the commercial office development located
close.to RoUte 29 because of the'area of public~service usage that is'being
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
294
proffered. He noted that there was a similar request for a a commercial area
of about 60,000 square feet granted for the Mill Creek North PUD. This area
at Mill Creek was on six acres and was authorized on the public road rather
than internally to the site. He pointed out that the Forest Lakes' request is
on a much smaller scale and is intended for commercial office area use and not
for shopping center type uses.
Mr. Bain asked the amount of commercial frontage currently in Hollymead.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out the commercial frontage for Hollymead as well as the
commercial areas for Forest Lakes North.
Mr. Bain recalled that there was no access to Route 29 for the Hollymead
commercial areas~.~~ ,Mn'-Cilimberg agreed. He went on to say that Hollymead's
access~would be aligned with whatever access is provided for the Forest Lakes
South parcel. He commented that the Board is in receipt of a fiscal impact
analysis ~which the staff const,ructed, The~ applicant- has put ~ some~ ,additional
information together~ and he ~w.ould give it to the~ Board,members.. ~ :..,
Mr., Bowie asked if the Board. members wanted this information'; He<. said
that there had been a policy' in effect for'the, last four~ years: that if the
information had not distributed to the Supervisors in advance of the Board
meeting, they would not receive the information. Mr. Cilimberg said this is
an update ,to the'analysis already distributed.
Mr. Bowie said'there is no ,fiscal impact information from the Planning
Commission in the Board members' packets. Mr. Cilimberg remarked that he
could letl,th'e applicant'~ explain the aspect of the additional information'-on
th~ ~ fiscal impact', study~. '
-Mt.Y-Bowie asked again whether or ~not the Board wanted this information.
He said that~ he did '~ not'- think~, it was fair~ for the.,Board ~members 'to'receive
nine pages of statistics:at the same time~ that' a'decision is ~supposed to be
made, and he noted that to his memory this has never been done before. He
then told .Mr. Cilimberg to go ahead-with his presentation, and.~agreed~for~ the
Board members to?~took at the fiscal-analysis.
. Mr. Bowie asked the annual revenues-for 1200 dwelling units. ~ Mr.
Cilimberg replied that.' for 1200 units there is an estimate of annual revenues
that could fund capital costs o.f $77,897.
Next, Mr. Bowie wondered what capital costs are involved.. Mr.~ Cilimberg
replied that~ schools Would be capital costs. Mr. Bowie said that-~$77~000;:is
not very?much money for. the~number, of children who will be attending t, he
schools.. He reiterated that he does not think that the Board should be
receiving ~his type/of .information, for, the'first time, at a Board meeting.~
Mr. Citimberg explained that'this, information was to. have been in the laser-
packet-' for Board,_members, and, the :, applicant' has~. simply, updated' some of this
information. "
Mr; Bowie commented that he is sorry that he interrupted Mr. Cilimberg,
but he. resents getting big- statistical documents at the Board meeting. Mr.
Cilimberg stated that, from the staff's standpoint, there are no recommenda-
tions~ for action'~based, On, the estimates.-"~e' said th'at' these.' estimates'_are
seen by the staff'.,as information :for the Board members, and the staff does not
have a way, at this point, to analyze how revenues and expenditure assumptions
of a particUlars, development compare. He went on to. say,that the staff repor~
provided an overview, and'the .applicant's additional information is given
the Supervisors- for their' consideration as pertinent-to the;rezoning applica-
tion-. He noted that: the' applicant.':s analysis · reflects 'the' facilities~that
have been identified ~in. the staff report~.. .... ~ ..... -.' '-.'~ -
.- Mr~ .Citimberg, continued 'with the staff ireport~ He .indicated. that the,:
Planning Commission has recommended approval of the rezoning request with
acceptance of eight.' proffers, and he noted those eight proffers for the Board.
.... Mr.. Bain~ asked Mr. Cilimberg if .the Board.~was. to have received:'the
information, to.which Mr :- Cilimberg~-:referred,~, .: Mr:~ Bain stated that.' he .has gone
through:the~Board'.s information and he cannot locate-it.~ ..Mr~ Cilimberg
referred+to a book,on' Forest Lakes South,, in which this information was.
included~' He said.that the book was to have been sent to:the Supervisors'
295
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
office to be included in each Board member's packet. Several Supervisors
indicated that they did not have the information. Mr. Cilimberg stated that
the Supervisors were definitely missing a big part of his presentation.
Mr. Bowie asked if there had been copies of the book, to which Mr.
Cilimberg referred, for each supervisor.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that the Forest Lakes South book had been provid-
ed by the applicant, and there had been enough copies for the Supervisors as
well as the Planning Commission. Me noted that after the Planning Commis-
sion's action, Mr. Cilimberg asked if copies of the book had been sent to the
Supervisors' office, and it was indicated to him that this was done. Mr.
Cilimberg went on~to.,say that he.:does.not know how the Supervisors want to
handle this situation, since they did not get the materials that had been
intended for them. (The Clerk noted that no books were forwarded for distri-
bution to the~Board-members.)
Mr., Bowie clarified that the Supervisors were not supposedto be,.getting
this information for the first time at this meeting. Mr. Cilimberg agreed.
Me saidthe'information that the SUpervisors got today .should have ~been an
update, to information received earlier.
Mr. Bain asked where.the connector road is. shownthat runs.-from the
Meadow Creek Parkway into the community of~Forest Lakes South. ~ Mr. Cilimberg
answered that this connector road is no longer a-part of,~the:application
becauseYDoT does not recognize 'the Meadow Creek Parkway alignment~ ~He.said..~
that YDoT~wouldnot consider a traffic study which showed.a"connection to
MeadowCreek Parkway with thisatlgnment and would only recognize the old
alignment as shown in CATS, which would have. come through the.eastern,.section.
Me added that becauseof the,uncertaintyof-the final, alignmentfor~thisroad,
the~applicant deleted,that part.of his rezoningapplication, whichrequired an
associated Comprehensive Plan amendment. The applicant then internalized'all
of, his:development and-road proposals, with,the.:exception of the'Hollymead~
connection.
Mr. Citimberg said this proposal, has no connection to the Meadow Creek
Parkway as shown. The applicant has indicated verbally that he feels that at
such timeas the State,and County concur:that the.alignment is in its approxi-
mate. location, an'areacan~be reserved within~the development toaltow.,for an
ultimate connection, if,_in'fact,, that connectionshould come,~through.this
section of-ForeSt Lakes, He noted tha~ it is also unknownwhere.the
Timberwood. connection.wouldtie into the MeadowCreek Parkway~,'~He-stated that
a-restricting factor relates to where,Timberwood is now shown intheCompre-
he~sive:.Plan, because it takes approximately 120,. feet'out of the' middle:school
site;-~He~showed,the Board the.'old.'alignment,,and he said:that when Timberwood
is considered,.~an,:alternative.alignment'wil1 have. to ,be studied~:.',He commented
that,the'alternative, alignment:might, shift~off of,this proposed, rezoningi~site.
Ahother complicatedfactor, according to Mr. Cilimberg,~relates to the, other
opportumity for building Timberwood, which has been recognized in the past as
being constructed over the dam~ Me recalled that the Supervisors have ex~
pressed.a~conce~n.regarding~,this.option because of. theobtigation ofthat_Ram.
Me-said that it~may be, when Timberwood Parkway is examined initsfinal.
analysis, that Timberwood, will have to be built further~to the east~ , Me went.
on.to say that the'.connection of-~Forest Lakes South. to the, Meadow:Creek:~
Parkwaywilt, notbe achieved under that scenario until another area,of-rezon-
lng is brought before the Board ,at,some later time.
Mrs~Humphris"-called attention to the-first proffer..-, She noted that.the
money'to be put~into.~the escrow~fund does not start until the,first-800.units
are-built, but ,the escrow~fund is,limited, to expanding _Holtymead School:or~.
constructing a,newSchoolin,'that.northern'area. She wondered, what._:.if,~',~a~the
time this;happens, there, hasalready been a?completion of.~'the,-expansion~of,~,
H0tlymead'-School or a'new'schoot'has~beenbuilt.? -
-Mr~ Citimberg~replied that a provision could be made relating to'the
Hollymead SChool expansion..oriconstruction of-'a new schoot.~He indicatedthat
the. applicant might also want:to,.respond to-this issue. :Me said that wording
could be included-in,the proffer that would, say, ~'or other capital school,~,~ ,,.
projects~in, the County., -
296
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mrs. Humphris remarked that the way the proffer is now written is very
restrictive to the County. Mr. Cilimberg stated that this is a proffer from
the applicant, so the applicant should address it.
Next, Mrs. Humphris asked about Proffer Number Four. She inquired if
this was considered the "Sunset Clause," and she wondered why the applicant
proffered that if ten percent of the dwelling units had not been built within
ten years, then the applicant agreed to waive his rights under the Virginia
Code. Mr. Cilimberg answered that the applicant is trying to indicate that
within a ten-year period, if at least that much development does not begin,
then the County has acted in good faith. He said it will be a developer's
problem that has prevented that from happening, and the developer should not
~utomati~alty.expect,~to~,be retievedlof his obligations.
Mrs. Humphris commented that ten percent is a small amount of the project
to build in.ten,years Mr,. Cilimbergrepliedthat when cash,proffers'~or~,other
land, proffers are, made, the Sunset Clause is,intended to assure that~the~local
government willnot comeback at.'a later date and downzone the property. He
noted that in actuality, Albemarle County has never done that. He thinks
Albemarle County~haS,honored all-~of its rezonings'and~proffers and, has,not
downzoned~any property later, unless it is at the applicant's request. In
this particular circumstance, Mr. Cilimberg statedthat the applicant's,fourth
proffer was~that if ten~percentof the dwelling units'had been developed' in
tenlyears, then'theapplicant feels'he should-be assured of the zoning.
Mrs.~Humphris commented that developing ten percent or.the dwelling units
in ten years doesnotsound like very many dwelling units.~ She then-called,~
attention_,t0 Proffer. Number~Seven~relating to the provision of recreational
facilities. Mr. Cilimberg responded that Proffer Number Seven has been
eliminated.~, Mrs,,"Humphris .asked if she should~'have known that Proffer Number-.:
Seven is not to be',included.~Mr~',Gilimberg then'stated thathe~Was:mistaken,-,
and,there had been another Proffer Number Seven which was~eliminated. --
Mrs..'Humphris remarked.that in order to,be consistent, Proffers,Number
Seven and Eightshould state that~ "The owner agrees~",rather than, !'We
agree.~'.,Mr~ Cilimberg replied, that he does not, think the owner would have any
problem-complying with.'Mrs¥. Humphris' suggestion~ relating ,to, the wording for:~
Proffers Seven .and~.'Eight .... ' :
Mr. Bain asked what is meant by Proffer Number Five which states that,
"No lot within the propertywill'front on or have direct access to,.any-roads
within the.HollymeadPUD," Mr~.,~Cilimbergpointed out Poe Lane-:on~he'map,~/ He
said. that the-applicant will, not establish lots that front on or,have direct
access:to,Poe Lane. Re,said-'that the Section Eight~residential-.area-will be
internalized so,~thatall access,will go out to the Forest Lakes South:develop-
merit road ~ather than,direCtly onto~a Holtymead"-road.;,'He went~on,'?to'-saythat
the opportunity for this,traffic-to get into-,Hollymead to go:to, the-school,,
fo= instance, will be provided by~a connector road, which he pointedout on~
the map,' He noted that this type of situation,is very limited in,this'devel-
opment. He:said that it~was also'proffered~that these will,be onty single-
family detached_units, '
Mr. Bain wondered~ifthe Hollymead residents had made this request, Mr.
Cilimberg,responded that the staff had felt that this would be more appropri-
ate. -
Mrs. _Humphris,asked Mr. Cilimberg, topoint~.out.the~Ridgewood Mobile Home.~
Park. -Mr Cilimberg~did so. He'noted,that themobile.homes~do,leXist, and,~they
arc,adjacent to.the commercial!office section of,~the '.plan.~ He said-,that, the
trailers can be seen on,the'plan. ~ · . :., . ....
Mr~ B~wie stated that the trailers are,not visibteto,:Route'29 because of
the terrain~ Mr~ Cilimbergagreed~ .~ ' ' '
,Mr~Bowie asked,~if~the~high ,ridge extends~to the commerciatoffice,a~ea.
Mr,~ Cilimbergpointed out the ridge and said that the commercial office area
will go up,to the higher point or-the land.
Mr.',Bowerman,next asked Mr.~Cilimberg~to~point out, the roads~-thatare,~
mentioned in Proffer Number Eight. Mr. Cilimberg did so. He said that
297
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
construction of a road would be required as well as the upgrading of a section
of road back to Powell Creek Drive and Hollymead Drive.
Mr. Bain asked about the rights-of-way involved with these roads. Mr.
Cilimberg answered that a right-of-way of 50 feet was established with the
Hollymead PUD. This assures that the public right-of-way is available accord-
ing to typical right-of-way requirements.
Mr. Bain asked if these right-of-way requirements are adequate. Mr.
Cilimberg replied, "yes." He said that it is not anticipated that this road
will carry traffic in excess of the already acquired right-of-way.
, ~Mr..~BoWie stated-that i'f5~:feet'was required for the right-of-way, then
there would be a problem. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the next requirement
for rights-of-way involves 60 feet instead of 55. He agreed that there would
be~a problem if a wider.right-of~way were--required~ ~He added:that:the staff-:
will be looking at exactly~what sort.of traffic flow and design is necessary
for this road. He said that everything at this point indicates that the
traffic flow will be very low. He. stated that the primary purpose of this
road now~would be. to get.traffic tothe schooI~and, eliminate'.the movement~to
and.f~om Route'29~ .He went on.to say that..this_mightrelievesome potentiate-
traffic'on Hollymead Drive. He added that when the commercial area develops,
there will be some increase in traffic because the Forest Lakes South resi-
dents willbe coming into that area. At thistime, the.-commercial~area which
has been approved for-this site-~will not generate high traffic volumes.,
Mrs. Humphris called attention to Page 15 and the section entitled,
"Fiscal Impact to~:Public-Facilities;" She pointed out an-error in Number~w~
under that section'inwhich the Northside:Library. was referred:~to~as~the :;~.~:
Northside Baptist Library,.
Mr. Tucker mentioned~Mrs,~Humphris' comments~about, iProffer Number.~One,'
and the~sum~of $1000-per~unit. to~be put into an escrow fund~ Ifthe Board is
interested~in changing this,proffer~-Mr.~St~.~_John will need to~workout~the
tanguage..~He believes that if~thereis to'>be su~ch a proffer, there has to,be
a, connection as~to how these funds are going to be used~ These-funds. haVe~to
be, tied to that-development. He pointed out that~the,~expansion of,Hotlymead
Elementary school or anew'elementary school would be-tied to~the,>Forest~Lakes
South develOpment~ as far as the need foradditional classroom spaceis
concerned ....
Mr~ Bowie remarked that it~is conceivable that~a new school will-be
located elsewhere,~as opposed to the Hollymead site He, wondered, asdid Mrs.
RUmphris, how the~money, will'~be Spent,.if HollymeadSchooI has already'~been
expandedand/or~!a new, school has been~built before this money becomes avail-
able. He.mentioned that maybe, the, moneycoutd be used to fund the debt. fora
new school~or,~,school~improvement:.~?Mr~ Tucker?agreed.~ He,-saidlanguage,~is.
needed, that-is general~-enough'to allow the~use~of..this money for something ,
elseshould therenot~bea~need~for more classrooms,in that.area.'~'~
Mrs~Humphris wondered~if~,thismoney could be used to~fundthe'!debt,~as
Mr. Bowie~had~mentioned, Mr.-Cilimberg agreed~withMr, Tucker'that~Mr~St~.~
John,should provide the~language for~the proffer if it is'changed.~. ,He said~
that he is!not~very~familiar withproffers~for~.debt service.
Mr. Bain asked about Number One on Page 12. He said that there were
severaltypographical errors.inthat paragraph, and he asked~Mr. Cilimberg to
explain What it is supp0sed-~to'say. Mrs,'Humphris~suggested that a period is
needed after the~word,~!'determined,"~and the next sentence should read,.~"Such
cooperative efforts, should be encouraged~" Mr. Cilimberg agreed. He indicat-
ed that~Number One. should read, "The'applicant had made provision for'~roadway
networkseonsistent with~the~Comprehensive,Plan-inthe initial submittal and
has'stated~a willingness to' continue~to cooperate, once~alignments'are.deter-
mined,, Suchcooperativeefforts should be encouraged~'q_~
Mr~ Bain stated~that,-a traffic~study is mentioned~in~thesecond~bullet~
under~Numbe~ Twoon-Page 12. He asked who~will,'do:such a_~study,~and~when~will
iti~take place.
de~eloper!s responsibility~ He~said~that~the~studywill~be submitted to the
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
298
County, and the County will provide VDoT with the information. He indicated
that, with the help of its computer traffic model, the County will then make
comments to VDoT and the applicant concerning the study.
Next, Mr. Bain inquired about the alternatives concerning public utili-
ties, specifically water and sewer. He wondered if a storage tank for water
would be involved. He said that he sees nothing in detail in the report from
the Service Authority. He noticed in the report that a pumping unit would be
installed for sewage with 50 percent excess capacity, and he wondered where
this is planned on the site. Mr. Cilimberg replied that he would rather for
the applicant to respond'to both of Mr. Bain's questions.
There were n0?~further'~ questions for Mr. Cilimberg, so Mr. Bowie opened
the'public hearing. He asked if the applicant was present, and he apologized
for the information that the Board did not receive. He said that this was an
iinternaL problem. - ~ ~.~ ....
Mr~ Steve Runkle, President of The Kessler~Group, stated that he had
assumed he would be covering a few summary points. He was unsure how to
proceed, since the Board has not had an opportunity to look~at all of the
documents that were' provided.~ He said it. may be beneficial if he makes,a"few
comments because it may give the Board members background information to help
them. while they are studying the documents.
At this time., Mr. Bowie asked how. many people were at the meeting to
speak about this particular project, other than the applicant. After a show
of hands, Mr. Bowie suggested that comments be taken from the public tonight.
He said he would rather~ see:the'missing documents before_he' hears Mr. Runkte's
presentation. '
..Mr, Runkle asked if'he could speak a few minutes, and 'Mr. BOwie agreed.
Mr..-Runkle stated that originally it had been envisioned to make a submission
for the entire acreage .over to~ the. Southern Railroad tracks, ~which is approxi-
mately-350 acres. -He said ~that this ,would require a growth.~area minimum for
the lportion east .of PowelL Creek. He pointed out on the map ~the~proposed'
location ~that the County favors!for the Meadow Creek' Parkway. He'said that~
originally they had agreed, to ~provide 120~ feet of ~right-of-way 'through a
c~rtain~area that~;he, located on,the map for Board members.~ He next showed the
Board the connecting point that was favored by the County's Planning staff.
He said that provisions 'were made for that particular connecting~point.
went on-to~ say that since-VDoT..kept making the point that this was not. the~''
official location for. the Meadow Creek Parkway, he attempted to resolve~ the'
issuelby2agreeing~to~provide~ an area that would allow~ for~ the road,i to
built. -He added that if The Kessler Group submitted any plan showing VDoT's
official location of the Meadow Creek Parkway, the County's position would be
that it would want a shorter connection to_ that~road-. He r~marked that~VDoT
would not review a plan that didn't show the Meadow, Creek Parkway in VDoT'~s.
current accepted location'. He said that he was in the middle between the'
County and YDoT because there was .no way a plan could: be submitted that showed
a connecting point. He.~stated~ that this is why this plan has. been submitted
which shows the road going to Powell~Creekland going down. through thel
cul-de-sac with a.connecting point,~which he pointed out~on- the' map.. He added
that he is perfectly willing to provide the necessary right-Of-way to make the
connection, at a future time, once it has been decided where the official
location of ~the~Meadow Creek Parkway will be,,. He-noted that there was no-way
that a traffic analysis could~be"done because-the connecting points are not
known, He ~said the roads were~internalized.;with the idea. that laud'will be
p~ovid~d to make~the connection to~the Meadow' Creek Parkway~ once the determi-
nation of the location is made.
Mr.~Bowerman asked if development willbe~started in the westernend,.of
the project before the location of the Meadow Greek Parkway is known. Mr.
Runkle answered that he anticipates starting from Route 29~ ~He pointed~out
locations,on the map where he said he would not anticipatestarting~develop'~
ment for'at least~twoto four years~ ~He would assume that .in that time frame
somedecisionswillhave been made. He added.-that..theonly way he. knows to
handle-the situation is-.to.agree to reserve:~someareas that coutd'~be abandoned
if they were notchosen.
-~ Mr. Bowerman stated~that the developmentcan .only progress~so far before
the decisions have'to be'made. Mr.'Runkle answeredthat he. wouldexpect to-be
building in some of the.areas~over the next eight to ten'years. He added that
299
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
if the decision for Meadow Creek Parkway is not made by that time, then he
will probably come back to the Board and ask to develop the areas that have
been reserved. He thinks that the project can be handled on that basis.
Mr. Bowie asked where the specific provision can be found that ensures
this option. Mr. Cilimberg responded that there is no proffer at this point
and no alignment on the plan that would ensure this reservation of land. He
said that it was on the old plan, and Mr. Runkle has pointed it out to the
Board members.
Mr. Runkle remarked that the only thing that is shown in the current
information is the connector road. He pointed to an area on the map and
stated, thathedoes~not~know'if~it~wouldmake a difference to reserve that
area at, this point. He does not know if YDoT would require a traffic study,
since VDoT does not recognize the County's choice for the location of the
Meadow Greek Parkway. Headded that one of the concerns, isthat'VDoT_~ould
requirea traffic~study that showsvolumes that are~not likely to occuri~as ~a
result of the possible connecting points that-~are shown~
Mr. Bowie commented that he,feels that. The Kessler-~Group has a right to
say that there is a point in time that a decision must be made. The County-
needs some assurance at that time that wherever the Meadow-Creek,Parkway is~
going to be constructed,~it will not be blOcked~ He thinksthat this, needs to
be~stipulated in the agreement before this project is approved.
Mr. Runkle agreed. Hewantedto point out that the only thing that is
officiallystipulatednowis the location or. the connector road, He said that
he is~willing to try to pinpoint a couple'of the locations that make sense,
provided that, becauseof VDoT's traffic study, it does not require that ~
things be built that are'not necessary.
Mr. Cilimberg remarked that one of the issuesthat Mr. Runkle~ has, men-
tioned is an alignment thatwould be off the~site of~ this rezoning applica-
tion. He said that this does not need to be addressed now. He added that an
area has been indicated on this,~application Planthat can be reservedinter~
nally.~ He.went.on'to say that this~matter has to be handled carefully, and
until the~connection is known', this information should not,be included in ~
anything submitted,to VDoT for'traffic study~ Heexplained that if this~
information gets to VDoT, VDoT might be determining traffic on a road that
will never exist. Mr. Tucker stated that the biggest concern is the dam
across Powell Creek, because the likelihood of it~being acceptedby the State
is very slim.
Relative to.theutilitY issues,'~Mr. Runkle remarked thatMr. Bill
Roudabush would answerspecific questions. Mr. Runkle pointed to an area on
the map and said that everything from that area east can be served by the line
that currently runs~up Powell,~Greek.'He;pointed~out.'another~area~and~said
that from this~area~to Route-29, because o~.the topography, there'aretwo
options.~,~, He Said~,that one'option isto buildan off-sitestation'where~'the,~'
three lines~come~together, Anotheroption~would be to~build'a great~deal~of
offrsite~sewer lineslto,,connectwith'thesecondary route.~ He,addedthat, there
probably is,not~a,great deat~of cost. difference in terms~of actual const~uc~
tion costs, but acquisition costs could be considerable.~, ~He~said~that,envi-
ronmental or, engineering issues"may have to be addressed. ~e remarked that
during this, process, the=e is an existing pumping station that serves~a
portion of Hollymead whichwill be replaced by the new facility.
Mr. Bain asked Mr. Roudabush what is considered, "adequate," as faras
water, capacityis.aoncerned~ ~.
~Mr,. Bill Roudabush answered that there,isa twelve-inch water line-in,the
median~ofRoute 29 which~comes fromthe No~th Rivanna,Treatment Plant and ~the
etevated'storage~tank on,'-the SPCA Road. He said that~this water~line serves
presently all of,~Hollymead and the~other developmentup~Route, 29~ ,:He~'said~
that.theline is la=ge'enough~in~,capacity~ and<the'~,etevation of, this proper~y
is-such~that~adequate fire, plugscouldbe placedat any~ipointin%the~system~'~,~
He-added.that more;.than likelysome~connection'~will be'made between.thenew
line and~the-existing limes in Hollymead.thatwill~give a better developed~and
completesystem,in~that,wholearea.
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
3OO
Mr. Bain asked if he is correct in thinking that a new storage tank will
not be needed to serve the entire area, and that the current storage tank will
be more than adequate to handle the new development. Mr. Roudabush agreed.
He said that this property is much lower in elevation than the existing
storage tank. He noted that there are cross connections to the North Rivanna
pumping facilities with pressure reduction valves located in front of Forest
Lakes. He said that if the South Rivanna Plant was taken out of service for
some reason, pressure reduction valves would open up and everything be sup-
plied by pumps. He added that this is an unlikely possibility, but it would
be an emergency situation that could be handled.
Next, Mr. Roudabush discussed sewer accommodations. He remarked that the
Kessler Gronphas an'understanding, with the Service Authority that there is
nOw~one sewer pumping station which handles a large amount of Hollymead. He
added that it is preferred, that if pumping is necessary, the system be
designed sothat only~that station,'be eliminated and only~oneother Station,
added~ -He thinks that this is a possibility.'He explainedthat, the additiOnr
al capacity is achieved because the pumping station is being pure,on the other
propertyat the lowest~elevation where everything adjacent will. be,~,served by
onepumping station. He said. that there will be no increase in nUmbers of~.
pumping stations, and they will all operateon gravity. ~ ..
Mr. Runkle~ distributed some other information toBoard:~members and
discussed it. He,l,noted~that the,first couple'of pagesof the~information
relates todensity; He said that.the approximate 250 acres for which the
rezoning is being requested is shown at present in the Comprehensive Plan as
either iow or medium, density, ~which is one:'to: four~,units or~ five:,~to-.ten:~units~.
an acre. He' added,~that'~ii~'it~is assumed that the~-'acreage is developed~ at,its
maximum density, there~would be 1850 units~or 8;3 units~an acre on that tract
of-land; He went, on.to~say that if the tract~of land was developed at,~an
average densitythatwould beallowed under~the, ComprehensivePlan, there~
would,~be t330 units or 5~9 units an acre. If it is~assumed that it~ would, be
developed~at the: lowerldensity, one unit per acre~for, the lowest densityland
five units per acrefor the medium,density, there would' be 810 units or~3.1
units, an~acre. He, said that~1200 unitshave been proffered.which is less,.than
average density~. He~suggssted considering Forest Lakes North asa comparison.
Hesaid what is envisioned forForest Lakes South is a continuation of Forest
Lakes~North, so theexpectation'is, that this.is the kind,~of density to be
expected~for Forest~LakesSouth. Headded,~that sinceeightto ten, years into
thefuture has.to be considered, a flexibility'has to be maintained toreact
to, the~market~ ~He said that Number A relating, tO ForestLakes,North indicates
the number of units,~ which, is 717, that,'alreadyhavebeen developed or'are~'~
under way. --~He,!~entJOn,to say'that the. overall density is 2;3'units per acre~
Me?mentioned that~these density calculations include the Greens at Holtymead,
which ~is a 144-unit~ apartment,complex that~is south of,the Hollymead~dam.'
Mr; Runkle then'discussed~Number B relating to 777 units, andan~average
density of 2.5 units peri'acre.· He,said~that these figures assume that'the..
last parcel that is undevetoped~ whlch isa five~acre parcel Zoned R-15, will
be developed at 12 units-per acre. If this~happens,-therewould be.:777-units'
or~2.Sunits per acre. He commented that this,is what. has really happened.in
Forest'Lakes North. Mr'. Runkle then called attention, to thesecond page~of~,~
the information that~he.distributed to the Board. He said that the first line
assumes~that thesouthern portion will continue to develop at the, same density
of 2~5~units per acre.. He~saidthat this woutdlbe~560'units, ,andapproximate-
ly 426, of these units would be detached homes,~or townhouses,~ He,~believes-that
approximately 75percent~of the 426 units~would be-detached~houses, 25 percent
townhouses and t34-,~apartments. Because of. the topography and denSity~require-
ments~ in~order~to construct. 800 units, there wouldhave to,be~420 aPartments.
Henoted that,if,there-were 1200. units, there would haveto~beg00apa=tments
because there is no way to fit~'that many units on the site withoutthis type
of mix~ He~addedthat the expectation is~,that' there will probably be 500 to
700.units, and the profferallowsthat if~the, market~changes'~in~'~two,yearS-and
everybodywants stacked, condos~of 1000 square feet, therewillbethe, ability
to react tothatldemand~ He does notexpeCt this to happen, however.
Mr~ Runkle next discussed the third~page~of the information~that.'he gave
to Board'~members~' He said,that~this is a summary of theFiscal Impact'Analy~'
sisthat'the Kessler Group,did, which is the'Group's third version. ,He added
that thishas been done at three different, levels or'numbers of units --~560'~
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
301
units, 800 units and 1200 units. He discussed the first column entitled, "Net
Capital Costs." He said that currently approximately 230 units are allowed
by-right. He added that it has been assumed that capital requirements for
those 230 households are already met in the Capital Improvement Plan. Every-
thing that has been addressed, in terms of capital requirements, relates to
the number of units above what is available on this parcel by right. Incre-
mentally, the impact thi~ development would have on specific projects identi-
fied by the County, such as the new high school on the northside, new middle
school, Brownsville Elementary improvements, Northside Library, etc., was
considered.
Mr. Runkle said the proportion of the facility that would be utilized by
people.'living in'~ this community'was considered, and then the applicant's
proportionate share of the costs was determined. He added that, theoretical-
ly, if ten percent of something costing $10,000,000 was going to be impacted
by this devetopment~ then $1,000,000 in costs, would ~be! assigned to this.:~
development-, He summarized" everything and~got~ a total capital~ cost,_ and :the
contributions his Group are making were subtracted. For example, he. said.that
since his Group is giving the five acres, a value Was put 'on the five acres
and subtracted. He went: on to say. that recreational~facitities that will:be
open to the public'are ~being provided~ by'his Group~ principally~ along Powett
Creek, and, the cost. of that was credited. He said that the cost of,
connector:'road' s right-of-way ~and construction, into. Holtymead was credited
He commented that'this'is ~how he arrived ~at net.. capital.,costs, and he pointed
out the~amount of the capital requirements less the contributions that his
group will be making. He noted that he arrived at the $1200 figure by sub-
tracting the $1000 a unit that will be contributed by his Group.
. The-.second column entitled, "Annual Revenues to FUnd Capital Costs~'t was
discussed ~next 'by Mr. Runkle. He said that this is based on, at build-out~,
that proportion~of tax·revenues~ from this development that would be available
to.~.f,~nd ~the capital costs. An~asSumption was made that approximately'15
percent of the total revenues generated by,this development~ would be allocated
to'fund capital costs'. -.The information given~to him~by the ~County was~.that
this -was- approximately'-the' ratio-of ~revenues'..that~ today- is used to- fund debt
service on capital costs~,...If 15 percent ~of the County's revenues ~go, to,.fund
capital requirements, then it was assumed that 15 percent will~-be available to
fund capital requirements. He noted, that $78,000 a year is_.15, percent of~ the
total tax revenues projected. .He added that the reason the handouts-that Mr.
Cilimberg-~.provided~ to the Board ~was modified because it was originally assumed
that-the value of those 1200 unitS on a per unit .basis would be the same-as at
560. He has since gone~back and recognized that_most of, the 1,200 units will
be apartments, and. they a=e: evaluated on the basis, of what their value would
be as apartments as ~opposed~to-detached honses~ In effect, this decreased~
what.,coutd be~ funded. ~
According to Mrs. Runkle, the~next column entitled, "Fundablel Amount @
Eight~ Percent Over~ 30 Years.," is the .amount of debt~ if~ it is ,assumed ~.that ~a
certain debt can be gottenl, at eight percent' over 30~years.~ He assumes that
most of-, the~lcapital improvements will be financed'over-time-with some ,sort~ of
bond f~nancing, etc.' This is the kind of~debt-~that -the~ revenue~~ stream., would
fund. He stated that $~8,000 would fund $877,000 of ~debt. He~added-~that his'
net capital~ cost requirement was $440,000, and at build-out it will ~be possi-
ble ~to fund"$877,000~ It appears, then, that~the.Group would~be able to:fund
$4B6~000.~more than the~requirement~ He noted that-there could~be some discus~
sions about how .he has valued the Group's contributions, .etc., but~this is the
approach that was used. He did not consider, because he could not determine
how to consider, any~ impact on off'site roads. He went on to say that there
was not ~any,consideration of'~ credit for on,site roads even though there may be
an ultimate, connector to the Meadow Creek Parkway other than the connector
road to Hollymead. He stated that he has asked Ms. Lisa Jones, who prepared
this information, to answer, the. Board' s questions.
A' :map,,was .shown ~on the-. third .page- of Mr ~.' .Runkle, s presentation~, and,~the
numbers on the map correspond.~to the section, numbers.on the land plan.. ~ Mr.
Runkle~lstated that -he had asked~Mr~'~ John, Greene, a~civil engineer, to do~
preliminary, traffic ~analgsis,' even though it is not. required,~ so that. there?
could be a~ feel' for.~the situation. ~He .explained that when-a traffic ~analysis
is done~ it is generally accepted by-VDoT~.that' the type of ~Unit is an influr .
once on ,the. traffic, volume.,- He noted~ that ~VDoT~'~.uses ten vehicle trips aday-
October 2, 1991 (Regular~Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
302
for a detached house and approximately six a day for both an apartment and
townhouse. If a plan is submitted that specifies 1200 units, VDoT will assume
12,000 vehicle trips a day. He stated that at least 900 of the 1200 units
will be apartments, so there won't be 12,000 vehicle trips a day. There will,
instead, be six times 900 plus the remainder of townhouses at six vehicle
trips a day. He said that the preliminary analysis that Mr. Greene had done
was in the information the Board will be receiving, which indicates what these
volumes will be. He said that Mr. Greene's recommendation would be that
building be done back to the entrance of Neighborhood Five, and that enough
right-of-way be provided for a four-lane road. He added that if two lanes are
built and it gets to the point that traffic exceeds 8000 vehicle trips a day,
which he does not believe will ever happen, then the additional two lanes will
~be.~buitt~ He stated~that the~remainder of those roads would be built in
anticipation of maximum occurrences that may come. He can't say what VDoT's
response to that approach will be, but he thinks that this is the most realis-
tic approach. He~saidthatit is definitely true that with 1200 units, not
many of them will'be detached homes. He said that this is~basically whatthis
handout is intended to show, and the Boardshould already have a copy of. Mr.
Greene's:analysis.
Mr. Bowie stated that Mr~ Greene's analysis is in the book thatthe~Board
members-do not have..
Mr. Runkle informed the Board that the traffic analysis wasn't in the
original book, but it is available~ He went~on to explain~that, the,~last'sheet
shows the impact thatForest, Lakes has had. on~buildingpermits in rural~areas.
He!said that this information was~first presented when Glenmore was discussed~
He called attention~to, the column~on!the.far-,rightof thelast pageentitled,
"Percentageof SFD.PermitsIssued in. Rural~Areas.',' He said that ithas been
identifiedthat inthe rural areas the real problem is single-family detached
homes. ~He'added that:,about~ 85 percent of,~,all permitsissued inthe~rurat_~area
are for detached'homes, and most of the other permits~are for mobile homes,
etc, ~,He'said that only the permits f0r detached homes-arc,considered, as~well
as .the beginning of the fourth~quarter of 1988 when Forest Lakes was started~
That is why the line is drawn in the far right hand column. He noted that
permits.had been running~an average of 70,percent plus in rurat areas~up to
that point. He"added that since that time, permits have been running on the
average of 50 percent. He said that more detailed information has been
provided which indicates that this is 100 percent dueto the Forest Lakes
development. He thinks that thisis a strong argument for the concept.of the
Comprehensive Plan to Continue. this approach. He asked-if~there wereany'~
additional~questions.thathe might attempt.to answer. ·
Mt. Bowie told Mr. Runkle that since the Board members do not have the
basic document, theyare~accepting what he istelling them
There wereno further questions for Mr~ Runklefrom~Board members..
Mr. Kevin Cox spoke next. He stated that the~density bonus factorsare
in the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinanceand are endorsed as a~
method, of:~encouraging theprovision of low andmoderate costhousing. Hesaid
that there are very specific guidelines concerning HUD-and FHA. ~Heaskedif
thedensity bonuses are available in the PUD and PRD districts. Mr~ Cilimberg
'! es. I!
answered,~y
Mrs, Cox commented that if the applicant wants.~a highe~ density, i~then let
him obtain that'*higher density:by'using the density'bonus~and providing some
moderately priced housing that some of the~ single parents who work in the
County: Office Building as clerks~and~firefighters, can~-afford to buy. ~ He' said
that some-of these~people have to move to.Greene or. Fluvanna counties, but
continue to .work in Albemarle County.
Next, Mr. Cox spoke about Parcel 46-27, which is in land use and owned by
people, in ~the land conversion business since 1968~ Re ~said~ that this particu-
lar' parcel~ has been' in land use since' 1979,~ and,,if this rezoning is granted,
the applicant will .have'to pay five years'in back taxes. 'He added that the~
taxes from 1979, when it went into land use. until 1986, will not be repaid. ~
He said that the five-year roll-back means that these taxes are gone and~ mre'"~
out of the taxpayer's wallet. He went on-to say that ten percent interest
amounts to a low interest loan for people with large amounts of capital who
303
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
invest the money elsewhere until the time comes to pay the roll-back taxes.
He said that these people earn more than ten percent interest on the money
while it is invested. He hopes that the Board will consider this direct
example in its thoughts about land use in the growth areas.
There was no one else from the public who came forward to speak, so Mr.
Bowie closed the public hearing. He reiterated that it is absolutely not the
applicant's fault that the Board members do not have any of the materials that
they were supposed to have. He said that this material will be given to the
Board members before Friday. Mr. Cilimberg stated that he has copies of this
material, and he will make sure that it gets to the Board members.
- Mr.~BoWie stated that he:,would'.like for the County Executive to find out
what-happened to the material so it won't happen again. He said that this has
been embarrassing, and he asked when this Board would like to reschedule a
meeting on this~matter'. ,'~' · ~' ~"'"~
Mr.~ Bain stated that he does,not want-to rush through thisiinformation.
He'said that he-would-like to have a. chance,to go-through the material, and if
he has questions, he will call the staff.
Mr;-Bowie suggested that the Kessler applicatiOn be considered,at'the
October 16meeting. He said.that Mr. Kevin Cox raised two good ,issues, and:he
would likefor the applicant to address them,at.the October 16~meeting..
Motion,was offered by Mr~ Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to defer action
on this petition until October 16, 1991. Mrs. Humphris suggested that the
following, changes,,'be~made in'the~staf,f's report.
1; In the action letter of. September 20, Conditions #7 and,#8,,~the,
languagereads: "We agree to ....,"; it~was suggested that the'
language read: "The owner agrees .... ?-
On page.16 of the staff, report, second:paragraph from.the;bottom of.
the page,, second sentence should read: "... dwelling units in
excess of 800 dwellings .... "
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: ~Non'e. ''
At 8:38 p.m., the Board recessed ,and reConvened at 8:50 p.m.
Agenda~:,Item~No'.~,7, ZTA-91-05~ , Public Hearing on an: amendment to'.Section
5.6.2 of the Albemarle ~County Zoning Ordinance, Conditions of Approval for
Mobile Homes' on.Individual Lots by the addition thereto of a subsection "f"
reading: '!No, rental to be:made:'0f the mobile home,, 'the same, to be. occupied, by
the owner of the land on'which: the-.mobile,..home is located, or-by a lineal
relative or bona fide. agricultural employee of the owner." (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on September 20 and: September' 26, 1991.)
Mr. Bowie asked if there was anyone in the room who wished to speak
concerning ZTA-91,05. No~nne, came forward to speak. Mr. Bowie-~explained',,that
he,had just learned that this item has not yet been considered by the Planning
Commission. He asked if the Board members wished to consider the application
without lthe Planning Commission's .comments .or would they rather defer it until
a later time. . .'
Mr. Bain stated that he woutd like to consider-ZTA~91?05. He does~not~ .
know why the Planning._Commission, deferred'it, unless it-was, because they want
to look at the whole, situation~; He thought this' Board!s, whole purpose- for
considering this,~Zoning Text Amendment was, to correct it-beCause people-are ,.,
applying, now. He said that he is unsure' if~ this Board Will want to do'any-
thing, or-, after everything is considered,.'.this Board 'may want_,to change,~ the
whole thing.
will remain.
He-believesthat if this Board does nothing, the inconsistency
3O4
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
Mr. Bowie co~nented that he does not know why the Planning Commission
wants to defer the Zoning Text Amendment. He asked Mr. Cilimberg for a short
summary on the Planning Commission's reasons behind its action. Mr. Cilimberg
responded that the Planning Commission members debated for and against the
amendment,, and finally said that they would prefer to hear the recommendations
and comments from the Housing Committee before they made a recommendation. He
said that the staff pointed out the fact that it was a very specific amendment
intended to deal with an administrative inconsistency.
Mr. Bain remarked that he didn't want to cause any problems, and he
wondered if Mr. St. John had any legal advice regarding this situation.
Mr. Bowerman~iasked if this Board?would have to act on future applications
beforethis amendment situation was resolved.
Mr. Bain pointed out that somebody could take the County to,court rela-
tive,, to an application lwhere certain ~things were required. He said that if
this policy is continued administratively, and, there is discrimination.with~a
particular~ application, there could'be a problem.~ He went on to say, however,
that before ~a case was tried in court, maybe changes would be made¥~ ~He' asked~
Mr. St.. John if this could be a problem. '
=M~. St. John,,answered'that he thinks that~it would be better to wait for
the Planning Commission's action. He believes it would be more of a problem
if this Board acts after,the Planning Commission has deferred the matter. He
said that if the~ Commission ,had a tie vote~and 'had' sent the matter,to this
Board with no recommendation, it would be a different situation. He stated
that if this Board, should, enact the amendment, he thinks that this Board would
be open~ to, a procedural~ challenge~.
Mr. Bain remarked that,there could bea'legat problem for~this,~Board,~now.
He said that, there could be-.another~,request two'weeksfromnow before-this
Board, and this Board~¢ould make a,certain requirement~ .~At the same time, ·
there could be three'requests that go, through*the administrativeprocedure '~
where the samething was~not required. Headded,that the person who comes to
this_Boardand has to meet the requirement could take the County to court
during this interim period. He asked how this could legally affect~the
County~ Mr. St, John answered that'legally the County is no-worse, off now~
than it has been the whole timethat~,thishas been~done.
Mr. Bowie commented that he believes there are two issues. He said the
Planning Commission wants to look.at the whole picture, and that is~fine,
This Board, however, wanted, to correct a flaw intheprocedure, .andcorrect,it
as soon as possible.. Mr. St. John stated that he does not think the Planning
Commission members realized this Board's desire as to the timing involved.
~Mr. Cilimberg replied, "yes,~they did." He, said that hehad,specifically
pointed it out'to the Commission members, andtold them that there~were'~two
separate issues. He added'that the Commission members went to work session
with two, separate issues and they came back, held a~public~hearing and~-de-
ferred it to the'next meeting.
Mr. Bowie asked~'Mr~Cilimberg to ask the Planning Commission members, if
they do not want to makea recommendation,~to explain~to this Board at its
next day meeting why they can't correct this inconsistency, Mr. Cilimberg
reiterated, that, the,Planning Commission wanted~to~hear~ from~the Housing ~
Committee,before it madeany recommendation. He,said that~one",of the commis-
sioners ,madel the' statementthat he did not feel~comfortable'making~arecommen
dation~on this matter,',as specific as~it was, and to give'an indication on ...... '
either side,of the issuewithout hearing from'the'Housing Committee.
Mr. Bowie then asked when the Planning Commissionlwitl hear from the~
Housing Committee. ~Mr. Cilimberg responded that the Housing Committee is
expected to-have some sort of report in December, but it is not guaranteed.
Mr. Way and Mr~ Tucker~stated that this Board had deferred other items
pertaining to this matter until January.
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
3O5
At this time, Mr. Perkins offered a motion to defer ZTA-9t-05 until
January 15, 1992. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. 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.
Agenda Item No. 8. STA-91-1. Public Hearing on an amendment to Chapter
18 of the Code of Albemarle, Subdivision of Land, to incorporate ¥irginia
Department of Transportation mountainous terrain and rolling terrain standards
as design standards for private roads. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
September 20~and' September 26, i991.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the following staff report:
"Origin: Private Roads Committee; Planning Commission~
Public Purpose to be Served: To revise private road design standards
to duplicate VDOT standards, which in turn.are based on (nationally
recognized) AASHT0 standards.
Staff Comment: After presentation of the ad hoc Private Roads Com-
mittee report, the Planning Commission, on~MayT, 1991, adopted~a.
resolution of, intent to amend'the County's~private roadsprovisions:~in
the SubdivisionOrdinance~in accord witk the recommendations of the
Private. Roads C0mmittee~ Staff has prepared amendments'to Section
t8-36 accordingly, and each]amendment is accompanied by 'comment'
PubliC benefits of these amendments Would include the following:
Current private road,standards are literally untraceable as to
origin and represent an amalgamation of opinion of several past
cpunty engineers~ AASHTO standards are considered, tobe of
national acceptance;
2. Recently lot purchasers on private roads have complained as to
.'substandard' design.. Such complaints should be allayedbY#1
above;
3,. During development of current VDOT designstandards, County staff
and local development'interests lobbied strongly forapplication
.- ,.of various terrain standards on a local as.opposed to regional
basis. Should YDOT follow such course in the future, more
privateroads maybe eligible for acceptance into theState
Secondary System for maintenance;
4 An enduring concern is whether or not private roads in the Rural
Areas promote development' of marginal'or environmentally sensi-
tive lands which the Comprehensive Plan may recommend for preser-
vation. This is tosay, do private road provisions promote
development contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive. Plan?'
Staff opinion is that development-in the Rural Areas~is primarily
market driven and secondarily controlled by government regula-
tion. Therefore, any contribution to development as may be
.realized throughprivate roads is a secondary!factor
STA-91-01~ Amendments to Chapter: 18 of the Code of Albemarle-(Sub-
division Ordinance)~'relating~ito PRIYATEROADSprovisions:
1. Reorganize §18-36(a) as follows:
ARTICLE III. DESIGN STANDARDS. DI¥ISION 6. STREETS
Section~18r36. Private Roads.
Private. roads are intended.to be permitted as the,exception~to
construction an& dedication of publicroads in the.subdivisions'
approvalprocess~ Granting of~.private road~usage shall be discretion-
306
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
ary by the commission and shall be based on the circumstances and
requirements contained herein. Private roads are intended to promote
sensitivity toward the natural characteristics of the site and to
encourage subdivision consistent and harmonious with surrounding_
development. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein and
permitted in accordance with procedures of §18-36(h), no waiver,
modification or variation of standards~ and no exceptions to the
application of these regulations shall be permitted.
a. Any subdivision, any lot of which is served by a private road
shall be subject to approval bY the commission in accordance with this
chapter. Any further subdivision of land involving additional use of
~:~ such road sha.lt:bedeem~d a subdivision subject to the provisions of
.-'~ this chapter. In order to insure adequate capacity of such road and
equitable maintenance costs to property owners, except as the com-
mission, may:~Pr0vide~in a particular case,.not'~m0re than one?dwelling
Unit shall belocatedon"any.parcel served~by such road~'
eonStruce~on-and-ded~cat~onso~pubt~c-roads-~n-the-~bd~v~on-approv-
a~prOeessv~-6rant~ng-o~.pr~va~e-road-nmage~hat!~be-d~mcre~nary-by
the-~omm~ssionrand-shatt-be-based-on-~he-~ir~mm~aneem~and-re~n~re-
ments~on~ained-hereinrr-Priva~e-roadS-arerin~ended-~o-prom~te-sensi-
snbd~v~s~on-~ons~s~en~-and~harmonions-'~i~h-snrronnd~ng-deve~pmen~:
Ex~ept-a~-e~her~e-exprem~y.prov~ded-here~n~and-perm~ed-~nra¢cord-
~a~on~o~-s~andards~and~no-excep~ons~o~the~appt~ca~n-~r~hese
regnta~on~-~hatt-be~perm~tedv
Comment: The second paragraph of current $28--36(a)is primarilp a'
polic~ statement andres such-should serv~ as' an ~ntroduction to the
private roads provisions.
~.:b~:, The-commission~may approve any:subdivision~ served by:,one,or
more· private:roads.:under tho. following circumstances:
........ 1.-, For:property zoned~-RA,:Rurat Areas, the:subdivider, in
accordance-with §18-36~h) of this chapter~-~demonstrates-.to:the reason-
able ~satisfaction-'of the-commission that.: ..... ' ~
........ .Approval-of~ such roads will alleviate a clearly demon-
strable danger of significant degradation to the environment' of the
site or adjacent-propertieswhich would be occasioned:bythe.'construc-
tion:,.of, public'.roads in the same alignments, Forthe purposesof this
provision, in addition to such other factors as the commission may
consider, 'significant degradation' shallmean an increase' of'thirty
percent~in th&'~fi0t~t votnme.iof~;grading for construction of a public
road as compared to"a private:.road;-anR~ -As,:'secondar¥ considerations,
among other 'things~,.the commission may' consideractual: volume-differ-
entiat~.as well as~surface:areadifferential-'-and.removal of vegetative
cover~ and
No.alternative public:road~alignmont:available,:to~:the:
subdivider on the adoption~date:of this-seCtionwould alleviate
significant~degradation of .theenvironment; and-
No more lots are proposed~on such private road~than~
couldbe realized~on~a public road due toright-of-way~.dedication~~
2. For property zoned RA, Rural~Areas, or VR. ¥illage Residen-
tial, where-such subdivision contains only two lotsand such private
road serves~onty%the lotsin*such subdivision, and, is the sole' and
direct,means of-access to a road'~in the state highway sYstem; or-:~. ~
3. Suchsubdivision is intended.:.for nonresidentialor non-
agricultural purposes; or
307
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
4. Such subdivision is not located within a rural area of the
comprehensive plan and such subdivision shall be into lots and/or
units to be occupied exclusively by residential structures other than
single-family detached dwellings including appurtenant recreational
uses and open space; or
5. Such subdivision constitutes a 'family division' as defined
by §18-56 of this chapter.
Comment: In addition to a percentage differential, this amendment
would encourage a broader view of environmental concerns (i.e. The
proposed Open Space Plan emphasizes tree preservation under several
~-.circumstances). That-is to,.say;~a short road may qualify under the
'30 percent rule', while a much longer roadway involving significantly
more volume of disturbance may not qualify under the 30 percent rule.
Obviously,~when-more factors of'iconsideration are introduced,~deci~
sion~making will become more complex and this is an~importantconcern.
Examples are offered:
Smith's, analysis shows a 26 percent difference in volume of
grading, an actual volume differential of 1400 cubic yards, and
removal~ differential of lOOv. 160 trees.
Jones' analysis shows an 18 percent difference in volume of
~.grading, an actualvolume, differential of~6500 cubic yards.and a
removal.differential of 10 v. 18 trees.
Justificationforapproving a private road in one case and.:denying a
private~road inanother case ~mayprove tobedependent~on, the-,majoritg
opinion as to the~relative importance of these secondar~ considera-.,
tions.: That' is to say, consistency in decis~on,making'was:,a,primary
considerat,ion ininco~porating,the.~30%percent rule' andintroduci~g
uther factors3may 'result in less consistency.
3. No:-changei.s proposed ~o §1,8-36(c):: .... ',- -
Cr'~: In addition to the provisions of §1.8-36(b), the commission
may approve a subdivision served by one or more private roads in any
case in which,the~subdivider~ in accordance with §18-:36(h) of this
chapter,, demonstrates to' the reasonable satis.factionof the~commission
that: ''
'. For a spec.ific~ identifiable reason,~ the general_public, interest,
cs..opposed to the proprietary interest of ,the.,suhdivider, would, be, .
b.e~ter, served by. the construction of such~roads than~bythe construc-
tion~of public~ roads. In the case of' any'~Such'approval, the commis-
sion,may require snch assurances from the subdivider in~a, form'~accept-
ahle~to~thecountyattorney as it maydetermine to be necessary to
protect the public interest with respect to such roads.
..%,~ <~,~f::'2~ 2. S' ~:TCL:<:~E'i~ 1-£' ~ ].,l,~~ ~i C ~ ' '
Comment: While not employed extensively, this provision has proved to
be a useful '~safety.~va2ve' and has been~applied~in measured fashion.
Private roads were.justified inthe Branchlands retirement.community
based.on seCurity of the elderly residents. ,Several public-purposes
were cited'~in,the,~approval,,of~private roads (tobe constru'cted,to!~DO~
mountainous standards) in the Glenmore PUD.
4. Amend §18~36(d) ,as follOWs,: . ' ~ ":-
d. No 'subdivision shali be approved .pursuant to~§18~36(b) or
§18-36(c),~ untess and until ~the commission shall determine that:~
1. Any such private road will be ~adequate to-carry the
traffic volume-which may be reasonably~expected to .be generated by
,such .su'bdivision;' and~ .~.' ,' ' _.~- ' ,.
2. The: comprehensive plan.does .n6,t provide for. a public,
road in .the approximate location of such,proposed~pri~ate road;', and
308
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
3. The fee of such road is to be owned by the owners of
lots abutting the right-of-way thereof or by an association composed
of the owners of all lots in the subdivision, subject in either case
to any easement for the benefit of all lots served by such road; and
4. Except where required by the commission to serve a
specific public purpose, such private road shall not be designed to
serve through traffic nor to intersect the state highway system in
more than one location; and
5. Any such private road has been approved in accordance
with §30.3 FLOOD HAZARD OVE~I,AY DISTRICT of the Zoning Ordinance and
~oth~er applicab~e~'taw~ ' - ~'
Comment: Issuance of a special use permit for a bridge or other
stream crossin~"in~.the flood ptaim is a legis2ative ac~whichshould
not be preceded (nor infl.uenced) bp subdivision, a ministeriallact,
(Th~s issue, was notdiscussed with the'Pri~ate~Road Committe~, bu,:has
been involved~inrecent flood plain reviews) .....
5. i~end §18-36(e) as-follows:
e,. All private roads approved pursuant to this section' shall be
constructed in accordance with the following:
iv--Private-roads-perm!t~e'd-under~§i.8-a6.(b)(i)~shatt'c~n~orm-~
therreq~irements-o~.~abte~v.-Private-r~adm-permi~ed-nnder - ~r
§~8~36~b)(B')~shatt~con~orm-~o~he-requiremen~s-~-~abte-t-ex~ep~-khat
a-minimum-SBRiof-snbgrade-of-ig-shatt-be-repnired-and-~he-depth-~
base~,-wid~hTo~ravet~ay;-minimnm-sight~dis~ance-andrsnr~ace~krea~men~
may-be-inereasedrin~aea~rdance-wi~h-~ha~s~andards-~-khe~¥irgin~
Bepar~mentro~-Mighways-andr~ransp~r~a~n~r-~herm~s~v.~ra~ie--inten-
sive:.nses-~rwhieh-sneh-tand-~y~aw~tty-berdevotedv~-Priva~e-r;oadm
permi~ed-nnder-~ig-36(b)(A)-shatt-e~n~-~-~he-repnir~enks-~
1. Private roads permitted ~der 1118-36(b)(1)~ 18-36(b)(2), and
18-36(b)(5)shall conform to tM'requirements of Table A, ,Privat~
roads permitted under §§Sections' 18-36(b)(3) and 18-36(b)(4) shall
conform to the requirements of Table B except that a pavement struc-
ture design in,-accordance~ ~with ¥ir~inia Department of Transportation
Subdi~i,sion-'Street Requirements~ shall be. required' .for the-most
traffic, r intensive uses. to which such: land .may- be~ lawfully devoted for
a private road'approved'~s~b~ect to §18-36(b)(3)~
..... .Excepts' as." otherwise~ expressly provided-,, .private -roads:~shail ~he
designed, to' conform-in .all regard~s to' current ~irg. inia Departmen,t~' o'f,~
Trans~or.tation'-Subdivision.Street' Requirement's'~' Private~' roads subject
to~--Tahie k'shall'be'~designed to,:conform,,to VirginiaDepartment of
Transportation mountainous terrain classification. Private roads
subjectto Ta~bleB shalti'be, designed to conform to ¥irginia Department
of Transportationrolting terrain classification. .
~ Nothing containedherein shall be deemed'tO preclude the commis-
sion from authorizing' the appliCationof ¥irginia Department of
Transportation mountainous terraindesign, standards toga private'road
sub~ect.to'Tabte. B, upon. finding that ~or .a specific~ identifiable
reason,-the general:public inter~'st:~as~opposed to. the...proprietary/--
interestof.,the~s~bdiuider~ would.,~e better~served~ In the cmse of
any~,such approval, the commission may..req,uire such ~as~sura~nces from~the
· subdivider-in:~,a:fo~rm~accep~able~"t'o the county attorney:as>.it."may~_.,
determine to~.be..ne:cessary, to:pro%ect:~the'publicinterest'~,' ' '
m~rving-more:~han-~ive;-bu~-not-more-~han-~wen~y;-lo~s-sha~.t~have-a
righg.-0~-way-~idth-o~thirty~feet-andra-maximnm-grade'o~not-more-~han
~ifteen-pereent~-prpvided~rhoweverrtha~rthe,*maximnm-grade-o~'snch-road
may-be-increased-to-not-more-than-eighteen-percent-~or-di~tance-o~-not
309
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 33)
more-than-three-hundred-feet-where-~n-the-op~n~on-o~-the-connty
eng~neer~_~epegraph~-~eatnres-jnst~y-sn~h-~ncrease-and-~neh-~n~rea~e
wilt-not-resnt~-in-a-sa~e~y-hazardv
2. Except as otherwise expressly provided, a private road
approved pursuant to Table A~ serving fewer than six lots shall have a
minimum right-of-way of thirty feet and all other private roads
approved pursuant to Table A or Table B shall have right-of-way width
conforming to the appropriate Virginia Department of Transportation
standard. Virginia Department of Transportation practice notwith-
standing~ only those areas necessary to accommodate improvements and
to achieve required sight distance shall be required to be cleared.
SubSequent to~-con,struc~ion, ornamental plantings and other
improvements may be installed provided the same shall not conflict
with sight distance, drainage facilities or other requirements.
~orrd~a~nage~mhatt-be~snbje~o-appr~vat-~-~he-e~nty-eng~neer=
3. Intersectionsof private roads shall~have an approach,~grade
no~ exceeding'four percent for 'adistance~of'not lessthanforty feet~
in all?directions~ Interssctions ofprivateand public,roads~shall
have-an~approachgrade not exc'eeding~two,percent ,for adistance of-not
less than fortyfeet in all directions. ~pproach grade,distance shall
bemeasured fromthe"edge of~-travelwa¥'~,'of'theroad'being intersected.
such~ro~d,~erv.~ng-more~than-~en~y-to~s-shatt-be-'con~rnc~ed-~n
a¢cordance~w~th-~he-¥~rg~n~a-Bepar~men~-~-H~ghwaym~-and-~ranmpor'~a-
~en~nctnd~ng,~:vbn~-ne~r.!~m~ted-~e;~her~zon~at-at~gnmen~-m~n~mnm
r~ght-.o~-way-wid~h-and-max~m~m-grader
~-~ ~he devetoper'~sha~l~ submit to the county engineer'~a'map of
the proposed subdivision having contour intervals of not greater than
twenty feet-showing, the.horizontal alignment 'together w~ith field~r~un
profiles and:,.tYpical~cross-section~of:such'roads. The,,c.ounty~engineer
may waive requirements of:~the,fiel~d-run ~rofiie'in?the~,case:'of:·an'--
existing ro~d or where deemed,~appropriate:.due'~to ~topoRraphy~
Comment: ~nendments to~$18-36(e)wo~ld'~achieve~the:primarg rec~mme~
dation of the Private Roads Committee that the. Virginia Department of
TranspOrta~ion~moun~a~nous,-.~nd,:rolling terrain standards:should be~
adopted, as. Countp,.private'road design standazds';-,General~p; moun-
tain°Us,.standards~wouldbe .avai~mble,~in the. ruma~,areas,.v~hile~rol{ing
te~rain~ standards: would be~;appl~cable to urban developm~nt~~'
Provision is,made to app~g: mountainous standards, to ,urban development
and each c~se wou~d. De judged.on its merits. It is~,impossible?to
anticipate a bodg of circumstances generatlgapplicable, therefore,
lapg~age from.~$tg'.p6(c) has been incorporated into $i8.36(e)(~1).
Note ~hat, i.naccord with,recommendat~ons,)of the~Pri~atelRo~ds Commit-
tee,~ mo change:is made to ~urrent~design,st~nd~-~ds:for'a '(rural)
private road serving fewer than six ~ots. 'The~committee:believedthat
the current ~farm lane' was appropriate and that Virginia Department
of Transportation s~andards would, be excessive (based on matt'ers, of
6. ~aintain §§-18~36(f), 18-36(g) and 18'-36(h) ascurrentlywritten:
f,. ~very Such ,road .shall bemaintained in accordance with the
provisions of ~§18-7 of,~this chapter. Any lot fronting on any such
road shall enter~only onto suchroad and shall'not haveimmediate
access onto any'~pub'li, c street,,, except :in:such case in which the
subdivider, inacCordance with §18-36(h) of this chapterdemonstrates
to the reasonable satisfaction of the commission that due to existing~
development,,: topography, or.,other physical~ Consideration as,,distin-
guished from a special privileged, or convenience',,atternativeaccess
would alleviate'aclearly~demonstrable danger, of,~significant~de§rada?
tion to the environment of the site*or adjacent:properties.::
310
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 34)
g. The minimum right-of-way width requirements of §18-36(e)
notwithstanding, in the case of a subdivision served by an existing
easement of fixed width, which easement cannot be widened by the
subdivider after documented good faith effort by the subdivider to
acquire additional right-of-way width, the commission may approve such
subdivision in accordance with §18-36(h) upon demonstration by the
applicant that such easement is of adequate width to accommodate such
travelway as required by §18-36(e) together with area adequate for
maintenance of the same.
h. A subdivider requesting commission approval pursuant to
§18-36(c), §18-36(f), or §18-36(g) of this chapter shall file with the
'~.~agent awritten~.reqUest whichshall state reasons and justifications
-for~such request together with such alternatives as may be proposed by
the subdivider. Such request shall be submitted prior to commission
consideration-by:such date as may be~specified,~y the agent. -No such
request~'shall~be conSidered~bythe commission until the commission has
considered, the~recommendation of the agent~ .The.'agentmay recommend
approval, approval wi'th conditions, or denial.~"A recommendationof
approval or.,conditional approval shall be~accompanied by.~a statement
from.the agent as~to public-purpose served by such.recommendation-,
particularlyinregard to thel, purpose and intent of this chapter, the
zoning ordinance, and the comprehensive plan.
Comment: Recommendations of the Private Roads Committee do not
occasion amendment to these provisions,-
Mr. Cilimberg-said, the Planning Commission, at itsmeeting on. Septem~'
ber 4, 1991, recommended, unanimously, approval, of this amendment.
Mr..,Citimberg saidthere is somehistorybehindthe recommendation~that
the Planning Commission and its Private Roads-Committee~have .put before~this
Board~ Workbegan in January of this year~based.~..on discussions.held:by the
Planning Commissionabout private roads nearly two~yearsago. The: basic
question the'Committee dealt".withwas whether.the' private roads provision
should.continue, and ill-they dido, what standards~would be required for con-
struction:of private, roads, where private roadS should be allowed, is there an
environmental effect to be considered in the decision-making process. The
Committeefoundthat private roads do serve a definable'public purpose and,
therefore, should.be allowed-in both the Subdivision and the Site Plan Ordi-
nances. There would be advantages to.changing standards, particularly, for
the~rural areas, toreflectVD°T.mountainous standards which are less environ-
mentally degrading than ther°lling terrain standards typically used. in'-the
County.~'Private roads~in~desi'gnated growth areas served a purpose, but it was
a more urban-scalepurpose. In designated growth areasthe rolling terrain
standards, would be more applicable~ Private roads,.byordinance, are avail-
able only to commercial, industrial and attached housing or multi,family
housing development in urban growth~areas.' There was theneed~.to~definewhat
the'30 percent environmental damage.differential between public and, pri~ate
roads~reallY meant~ TheCommittee 'not only discussed'theneed-to analyze the
percentage definition, but-also an actual~volume differential,.or~surface:area
disturbance differentia~.
Mr~Cilimberg,continued by~-discussing the public benefits of private~
roads~ He said he~wouldnot'read~the changesverbatim, but.noted where~the~
changes occurred and the reasoning behind.them.~ The_main reason, the "30-
percent rule?? was introduced in the subdivision~'text~was-for consistencyin~
decision-making~ ~
Mr.~Cilimberg said~ the Committee was~madeup of~not only County staff',
butalsomembers from local development interests.and~private interests.,~He
said it~was considered important to look atl the actuat-votumedifferential and
removal of vegetatiye~cover. -tn Certain circumstances~this'has a,more'
critical effecton the site than the,difference between:a public, and private
road at.:30 percent.grading~.~ ' · · .......
Mr,~Bain wonderedhow closely, the County's engineering staff looks at
where the road is proposed to be located. Mr. Cilimberg said the idea has
-~ "30
always.,been~ even, with nne' percent.rule,"thatadeveloper hasto'show
311
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 35)
where a public road would be built to serve the lots. A private road compari-
son has to be in that same area. Re stated that the applicant would not try
to find the best spot for a private road and the worst spot for a public road.
He said this element of decision-making will continue, because there will
still be the need to look for the logical public road alignment for compari-
son, and a private road alignment would have to be shown in a similar loca-
tion.
Mr. Bain wondered if. the applicant decides the location of the lots and
then the road is sited in relation to those lots, or, are the roads sited and
then the lots worked around the roads. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the road
locations are not the only things that have to be considered. He said that
.tocationS~of~the~iots~:the-~uilding sites, and septic systems must all be
Considered.
Mr. Cilimberg said under,'theRural Preservation regulations,~there',is.~
more flexibility. He said that when the County is dealing with~-thejby~right
standard, of planning, thenthe staff,considers, the availability of-.~a, building
site and the environmental effect.~,He went on'to say that~the staff will make
recommendations as to how to avoid the'environmentat~effect, butlthe County
does not have the discretion totell the developer exactly what to do. He
mentioned that when the location is chosen, and the volume differential,
surface differential or percentage differential are considered, both public
and private roads.have to be in the.same alignment so the~same comparison has
to be made. It is. not feasible to show a public road ink, one.location, and a
private road~in another with the idea that the private'road has much less
environmental effect, so-a private.road should be built,
· Mr'~ Bowie commented that the Policy Statement indicates that the subdivi-
sion and road are designed to be compatible with the surrounding territory so
that there Will,be the~least degradation. -The policycan~be,used as,~inter-
pretationsare made, but somebodY¢ould still make a mistake. M~.~Bowie'~
remarked that hehas never beencomfortablewith the fixed "30percent.~rule','
regulation~ He hasno objection~ however., to the vegetation,~etc.,,or~the~,~
remainder,.of the~regulation, His only concern' lieswith the question~of'~who
is. responSible for~making thedecision on. the 1.ocation,~of the~:roads~ ~
Mr.~.Bain asked that the,Board haVe a work session with~the P~ivate Roads
Committee~before making a decision,. He said that~a greater~detaited~report~
from~staff would also be. helpful. He wonders i.f only private~oads:.will be.~
buittinthe County in'the future. Re thinks.that this Board?needs to.be
careful in the changes-that' arebeing made.~and really look at the policies~
Mr-. Cilimberg said, in response to Mr. Bain's comments onwhere roads.are
built versus the location of lots, that this issue comes into play~justas
often with public roads as it does with private roads..
Mr-~ Bowerman commented.~that without private .road provisions, the State
mandates what has.to be done. In a~ way this determines-where the lots can be
because-.the"minimum standard for,~the.roads is known. He noted'thatthis
regulation:for private roadswill-.allow, alower~ standard~whichincreasesthe
availability of lots.
.Mr. Citimberg,agreed that' there is no argument for~-this.'particular:'aspect
of the,issue.. He,added that if there, are altowancesforprivate:~roads,,then
the'possibilityfor development, is:easier in the~area where those private
roads.areloeated.' TheBoard.will have to approach its decision-making,'first
of all, from the question of whether or not private roads are wanted. He went
on to say' that the staff was:~trying to,~approachtheissue, based..on"the
Private Roads Committee's conclusions, as how to,best allow for-private roads
with.the~least environmental effect, assuming, that private, roads will be.
constructed in the County.
.Mr. Bowerman asked if-the Private Roads Committee:assumed that private
roadsare, necessary. Mr. Cilimberg replied,:that the Committee made the,.~
statement: from ~he beginning that there is.some benefit:for private, roads; but
it is still in the Committee's hands to make the decision as to whether or not
they will be allowed.
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 36)
312
Mr. Tucker stated that when the issue of private roads was first dis-
cussed in the late 1970's, private roads were going to be allowed primarily in
larger lot development, and in rolling mountainous terrain, because the cost
of providing development in that type of topography was too expensive to
provide development with state standard roads. He said there would probably
be five-acre lots or greater with private roads, because there would be a lot
of frontage that no one could afford to develop in large lot development in
the rural area and also construct a state road. During those discussions and
eventual adoption of the ordinance, that concept was dropped, and it was not
made a part of the pplicy. He said the result is what is taking place now,
which basically allows.any type of development on private roads, using the
provisions and guidelines that are currently in the policy. He noted that the
policyhas been modified a few times.
Mr. Tucker said the County has not gotten away from that original direc-
tive,.but he. knows that this is why private roads were originallybrought
before the staff, Commission and Board in the late 1970's.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed, out that one of the things'thathas happened~to
change.things in the rural areas,..based on the Comprehensive Plan, is~that
large lotsare not encouraged. If private roads are only available for large
lots,-he wondered if the purpose of the rural areas.provisions are being
defeated, ' '' - ' ~ ' '
Mr. Bowie commented that.'roads do not have to, be run over a 21. acre. lot.
Lots ,could. be clustered, and. a public road' could, serve them.
.. Mr. ~Cilimber. g ,noted that one'-of the problems identified from the develop-
er's viewpoint, is that state roads are required to be built to state stan-
dards. This means that'~the width' and.curvature requirements have to be.met,
but. it .also,..-means that, clearing away" from the road has to..be' done." When- this
is 'done,' trees are lost', and this causes the subdivi.sion.to have the appear-
ance of a development. With a private road, there is a more liberal opportu-
nity to keep trees,, the developer, does not have to grade back from the road,
and'there is' more_chance to.keep the rural feeling of. the area. 'He said that
sometimes' the developer wants to keep the rural feeling in a particular
subdivision. ~
Mr. Bowie agreed that this is specifically why he. did not object to the
change from the fixed ".30 percent rule" because there are other considerations
that are:more important.
Mr. Bain asked'what the, mountainous terrain standards involve.,Mr'.
Cilimberg replied that the.mountainous terrain.standards cover design speed,
radius, curvature., maximum grades, stopping sight distance, intersectional..'~
sight distance, widthof travelways, rights-of-way width, widths ofshoulders
and-width of~ ditcheS. .
Mr. Bain next wondered if the County Engineer would be approving these
standards without having to contact_VDoT. Mr. Cilimberg answered that.~his? is
correct. ~ t{e said that.the County Engineer will actually use the basis of the
VDoT mountainous terrain standards. He described several situations recently
where the County Engineer based the private roads on mountainous standards.
He reminded the Board that Glenmore was one .of the situations to-which .he is
referring. He said'that he could verbally give the Board a comparison' between
rolling and. mountainous terrain. Mr. Bain responded that this was not neces-
sary. He said that he would like to have something in hand to study.
There, were no further questions for Mr~ Cilimberg, so Mr. Bowie. opened
the~public.~hearing on the ordinance amendment :-No one,came forward' to ,speak,
so. Mr. ~Bowie closed the public hearing .....
Mr. Bowerman commented that he would like for the staff to look at the
question of.,whether this policy change is counterproductive, because it has
nuances of being exactly that.-He said that where clustering can take place,~
there.is no need for private roads, because there are state roads. He. added
that where land can be developed on private' roads, clustering can be considv
ered, which is the very thing that this Board is trying to accomplish.; He
would like .to consider this amendment in terms Of:a policy.question,
313
October ~, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 37)
Mr. Cilimberg replied that staff has discussed the situation where a
private road would be allowed for an PRD, but a more conventional subdivision
could possibly obtain a private road. He said staff wondered if the standards
for construction requirements would have the effect of pushing developers into
constructing a private road that would be longer, but would not have the
stricter construction standards associated with it. this means that the
developers may be pushed into a more conventional development than has been
seen in the past, rather than developing a PRD. He added that there has not
been such a situation in the County, as yet.
Mrl Perkins believes that one of the problems is the state standard for
roads. He said a representative from Citizens for Albemarle made a presenta-
tion to this'~Board~on~clustering-,~ Mr,. Perkins stated that this gentleman
tatked~ about roads and pointed out that this Board should be careful not to
let the Highway Department encourage the County to build big highways that are
not needed~ Mr~ Perkins pointed out that VDoT will do just that. He said
that whenYDoT: upgrades a gravel road, before the blacktop can be put on the
road, it has to, beupgraded tothe point of moving utilities, taking out ~-
trees, etc. It looks as~thought VDoT is doing all of~this so that. it~won't
have to do anything else on that road~for the next 50 years. Mr. Bain stated
that"liability"is the~reason the Highway Department does so. much~work when
it~is updating roads.
Mr. Perkins~reiterated that he thinks state standards are the reason for
this problem. He believes that there is a place for private roads, particu-
larly where there is a dead-endstreet or there will' be slow moving tra-ffic,
He-thinks that sometimes it is'desirable to have lower standards than~hat the
state,requires. '
Mr. Bain asked whois responsible~for supervising road construction. He
wonder.s if the CoUnty Engineer is resPonsiblefor just supervising, and. if
developers'are doing some ofthe testing themselves, so that they are not~
relying on the CountyEngineer to check widths, compaction, base and depth.
He noted that VDoT checks these types of things,~ and even though VDoT may not
check t00 percent of its roads, he believesthat it is doing a better job.than
this County'has been doing.
Mr. St. John stated that problems already exist. He said this Board is
getting into'the decision-making process of Twhether to doaway with private
roads, and.the purpose of these changes is not to force theBoard into.~that
decision at this_point.~ Headdedthat now there is a narrowly~drawn ordi-"
nance,~:,There are certain places where everybody thinkss~private r,oad would~
be environmentally preferable to a public road, but because'ofthe way the
ordinance is so narrowly drawn, they are powerless; "their hands are tied."
He said the environmental factors that are here cannot be considered because.~
thelordinancedoes, not permit, it. tf thisBoard would like,to take a second
look at the~whole idea.of whetherthere should be private roads or,not; it
seems to him that, this isamuch broader issue than,~what~is before~.the.~Board
tonight, ~Mr, Bain remarkedthat he does not want to take a lot of time~ to ....
consider~th~.issue~ Hesaid~he doesnot believe' that~there is verymuch~more~
work for~the staff to do'...
Mr. Bowie stated that somequestions~cannot be answeredtoni§ht.~,He
agrees with Mr.~Perkins that the County is better~off in'a lot of.¢asesnot to
have, a 50 foot wide state road-just because~there are six houses located in a
certain area. He would like to seesomething that would altow_the~ County to
have,a private road in the' most~environmentally sound~way and to ensure that
it does not.fall apart in.ten years,. He said that the private road~should be
built tostate construction standards, but not to state widthor bank stan-
dards,~ etc~ He added that writing an ordinance is'a waste of time. if thereis
not a~Way~to inspect..the~roadsand enforce the'regulations. Mt. St. John.'.
commented that this' is a~question of enforcing the existing standards-. He
said, that, something new.will not address that issue.
~.'-Mr. Bowie remarked that this.concerns him~ He,said that~writing ordi~
nances~is good, but~ if~ they can't be enforced, then the Board is wasting its
time. He likes the provision where the fixed "30 percent rule" does not have
to be used, but he wants:.to know how it can be protected., , .-.. - '
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 38)
314
Mr. Bowerman stated that he would like to look at the policy implications
as far as trying to, as Mr. St. John suggests, "untie everyone's hands."
Mr. Bowie remarked that a meeting of the Committee members with this
Board could help and he suggested that the matter be scheduled for the Novem-
ber day meeting.
At this time., Mr. Bain moved that STA-91-1 be deferred until the Novem-
ber 13, 1991, day meeting. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. 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. ..
Agenda Item No. 9. ZTA-91-06. Public Hearing on an.amendment;-tothe -~
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance~in Sectionl0.4 to amend building, setback
regulations in the Rural Area District related to private roads. (Advertised
in theDaily Progress, on September 20-and September 26, 199L) .
Mr. Cilimberg gave the following staff report:
ZTA-91-06:
1. ~%mend Table 10.4~ AND B~REGUI,ATIO~:
Yards, minimum:
Front (existing-public road) 75 75
Front (internal public or private road) 25_ 25
Side 25 25
Rear . 35
Comment~ This amendment would more than compensate,forincreased
right-of-way requirements~. In, addition,~ theamendment would offer:
- greater flexibility in house site location
reduced construction costs
- reduced number of variances from setback requirements
less environmental/aesthetic degradation
Mr~ Cilimberg said~.the Planning Commission at its meeting on
September 4, 1991~ unanimously recommended approval of the above-nOted text
amendment. He said it~,is a fairly straightforward adjustment intended to
allow for less requirement for setbacks under the assumption that there will
be widerright-ofrway requirements for private roads under thenew, ordinance
provision. He went on to say that this amendment is also to, recognize that on
interna!,,public or private roads there is-a, different,issue regarding~the
setback, requirements in the rural areas than on ~existing~public external state
roads that are now in place. He said the original intention was to discourage
stripping of state roads. One-way that this was discouraged was by greater
frontage requirements, and at the sametime, by having the 75 foot setback to
get the houses off, the~road as much as possible~ 'He said,that another way to
promote internalizing would be byallowing areduced setback on internal
roads. He added' that not only would!there-beamore~narrow frontage require-
ment, but also less of a setback requirement. He noted that environmentally
it allows, for the lots:that would'be created on internal roads to have less
acreage~becauseby reducing the:setback, there is,more of an opportunityfor
people to locate-a building site within a.minimized area. '~.
Mr. Bain asked if this amendment applies-to all zones. Mr,'~'Citimberg
replied that currently thegreatest setback in'any other~zone is.~25 feet.,
other,-than,RA. He saidthat this would bring the RA zonesetback.into that
kind,of comparative situation.
Mr..BoWie asked if theRA zone setback is'75 feet. Mr. Cilimberg~an~:
swered that~the RAzone.setback requirement was 75 feet, but it will. become25
feet, if it~is on. an internal public or private, road.
Mr. Cilimberg .gave an example Of' how the amendment could work to-the
benefit of the environment in those considerations. He said th'at'in"'typical
cases on internal roads, ridge:,lines are followed'as much/as possible. He<
315
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 39)
said that many times, if developers are made to go 75 feet off of the
right-of-way, they have to go down the hill and find a building site that
meets the County's requirements. He added that many times this means that the
size of the lot has to be greater. He went on to say that if the setback is
25 feet, there may be more of an opportunity to get a building site that is
closer to the road. This means that a bigger lot is not needed, and there is
not as much. clearing and grading needed to get to that lot. He said that this
is the main idea behind this amendment.
At this time, Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing. No one came forward
to speak, so Mr. Bowie closed the public hearing.
'~In answer to.~Mr.~ Bain!s',inquiry,~Mr. Cilimberg responded that this
amendment can stand on its own, but he does not think that the changes would
be inconsistent with the current private roads requirements.
'~:Mr.. Bain stateR~that he~ appreciates the.flexibility that-.this amendment
~allows,.but he thinks it isreallysubstantive. He said that the requirement.,~
is going from 75~to 25 feet in some cases~ He realizes~that some developers
are not going to want houses that close tothe'road, so-the flexibilityis~
still~.~there, andhe fs. not sure that the requirement needs to.be reduced"that
much~ He, Wondered,where the~lSfoot~irequirement'originated. Mr~Cilimberg,~.
replied'~that the 25 foot. requirement was decided upon for consistency.
Mr. Bowie remarked, that he:has no problem with'the 25 feet requirement.
Mr. Bain asked if it was possible for Mr. Cilimberg to bring in a plan so
thatt-he~,Board can~see:~how thiSrequirement~will affect a certain plan. Mr.
Citimberg answered thathe might, not have a plan to show, but he can~ at least
give some examples.and illustrations.
Mr. Bain stated that he would prefer to have something infront of him
before a decision on the amendment is~made'.. He then moved,that ZTArglr06,be
deferred to the November day. meeting and Mr. Bowerman seconded the~motion.
There being no further~discussion',.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.
Agenda-Item No. 10. Albemarle High School .Field House, Status Report~. ~'
The following memo dated September 26, 1991, was received from Mr.
Robert. W. Tucker, Jr.~, County-Executive:
"At the.~Board?s meeting on October 2, 1991, representatives or,the
Albemarle High School~Field~ House, Committee will presenta Certificate.
%-ofDepositin,'the am0unt'of~ $240~000to guarantee.thatfunds~ are'
available for-the completion of the~entire field-~houseproject~.
Subject~ to.~Board, approval, arrangements have been made for the Coun-
ty's share of theproject to be spent'first, cash raised by the alumni
group to be spentsecond, and~the~balance not.to exceed,~a total of
$240,000 to be spent last. This Certificate of Deposit has been set
up, such that it is assigned to the County of Albemarle and subject to
withdrawal in installments by the Director of Finance.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the staff to proceed with
the execution of.~the~necessary documentation to begin the project
under the guidelines as presented,"
,Mr,.Tucker told~the Board,members that the, Albemarle_High School~Field
HouseCommittee has~done~a,lot~of~work, along withthe County .staff~ He said
that originallyla~,Certificate~of-~.Deposit of $240,000was~expected to be
presented tonight.~ He explained, that. there~ issuchaCertificateofDeposit,
but it is locked up in the safe, He added that Ms.,Brenda~Langdon.will~not
physically be able to present the~Certificateof'Deposit to~the.Boardtonight-
He requested that theBoard authorize the staff to proceed with theexecution
316
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 40)
of the necessary documents so that the project can begin under the guidelines
mentioned. He stated that the first thing is to get with the contractor, and
take care of the necessary change orders, so that the entire field house can
be built on schedule. He noted that Ms. Langdon is at the meeting.
Mr. Bowie asked Ms. Langdon if she wanted to say anything. Ms. Langdon
stated that it is very important to the Field Rouse Committee that the persons
who are responsible for the contribution to the field house remain anonymous.
Mr. Bowie said that the Board appreciates the Committee's efforts on behalf of
the County.
There were no further comments.
Mrs; Humphris moved that the board authorize staff to proceed with the
execution of the necessary documentation to begin the Field House project
under the guidelines ~as.outlined-in Mr. Tucker's'.memorandum:datedSeptemr~.-:?
ber~-'16, 1991. Mr~ Bowerman seconded the motion. There being nofurther
discussion, roll was called and themotion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman~,-Bowie, Mrs.~ Humphris, Mrs. Perkins and Mr.~:_Way.
NAYS: None. - " ~ ..... :~
Agenda Item No. 11. Local Land Use Management Powers, Statement on.
Mr~ Tucker explained the:;draft document on local land use management
powers for the Board'sreview. He Said that this statement can be presented
by either a~ Board member or~.a member~:of the~staff at .theOctoberl0~meeting of
theCommission on Population Growth and Development. He,noted that this
meeting~wilt!be~held at the~Hotiday Inn onAfton Mountain~' He~ asked the Board
to. provide~him with~any changes at'today's meeting, so~that~the changes could
bemade'by the Board's~October'9~meeting. Hestated-that,~otherwise~ this~i
statement will be prepared in final form.
:. Mr.' Bowie asked that the Supervisors giveMr.:Tucker, any'changes, or
comments., and the revision will be presented to the Board on next Wednesday.
He also suggested that three or four Board members attend the.Commission
me'ting. He said that Board members might not want to sit through the whole
meeting, but it w~uldprobably get more~attention~ if theBoard memberswalked
in, indicated their support and then left.
- ~ Mr~ TuCker~informed the Board that a large area, including the Shenandoah
Vmltey:and.Central Virginia., wouldbe~involved~'~so-there should be~quite.a~few
peopte,~at..the Commission meeting.
~ Mr.~Bain and. Mrs.. Humphris agreed to'attend with Mrs. Bain presenting the
statement.
Agenda'.Item No~ 12a. Appropriation: ,1991Community Development Block'.
Grant (BDBG), Albemarle"Rousing Rehabilitation grant.
~. The fotlowing..memorandum'dated. September 2'3, 1991,~-was receivedfrom~Mr.
MetvinA. Breeden, Director of ~inance.: · - .~.- "~
"This grant was awarded in the amount of $500,000 by the Virginia
Department O'f Rousing and~Community~Developmentto~rehabilitate ~','
*?~lowJmoderate~hOusing in. theCounty.of~Albemarle. The localmatch'is
$317,820. TheBoard of Supervisors approved $247,294 of the local
match in the 1991-92 Budget. The balance of $70,526 will be approved
with~ithe 1992~93 BUdget The~local match is part of the normal
appropriation to the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP),
not additionalfunding.
The:County has contracted'with the AttIP)to administerthe'program."
317
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 41)
Motion was made by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Humphris to adopt the
following resolution of appropriation. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
S: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr~ Way.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR: 1991-92
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
CDBG-
ALBEMARLE HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM
EXPENDITURE : ...... ' ' ' ~ .
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
1122481020563100
Albemarle Housing Improvement Program $500,000.00
TOTAL ~$500~000.00~
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2122433000330001 Grant Revenue-Federal
TOTAL
$500,000.00
$500,000.00
Agenda ItemNo. 12b. Appropriation: 1991 Offender Aid & Restoration
(OAR) Citizen Volunteers in Virginia Jails Grant.
The following memorandum dated'September 23, 1991_was ,received from Mr.
Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance:
"This grant, wasawarded in the;.amount of $46~000~by the Virginia~,
Department of Criminal Justice to provide c,itizenvolunteer services
to inmates in.Virginia jails.' The grant will, be administered by'.OAR~
with the County being fiscal agent. The County will receive the
funds and immediately pass them on to OAR. OAR wil~ perform_the~i-
required,services and-fillall applicable reports."
Motion was immediately offered by Mrs. Humphris and seconded by Mr. Way
to adopt, the following resolution of appropriation. 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.
FISCAL'YEAR: 1991-92
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE.OF APPROPRIATION:
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY:'
OAR CITIZEN' VOLUNTEERS'~. IN VIRGINIA JAILS~.
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
11.00039000566120
REVENUE
DCJS-OAR CITIZEN VOLUNTEERS
TOTAL
DESCRIPTION
$46,000~00
$46,000.00
2100024000240422
· - - DCJS-CITIZENVOLUNTEER
TOTAL
$46~000.00
$46,000.00
Agenda Item No. 12c. Appropriation: 1991/92 Offender Aid & Restoration
(OAR) Pre~trial'Diversion_Grant.
"This grant was awarded~in the amount~of $62,753 by the.Virginia
Department of Criminal Justice to assist in pre-trial diversion. The
grant_will.be administered by OAR with' the County being fiscal agent.
The Countywillreceive the funds.and immediately pass them on. tp~_~
OA~. OAR will perform ths required services and~fill all applicable~
reports.
318
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 42)
Motion was immediately offered by Mrs. Humphris and seconded by Mr. Way
to adopt the following resolution of appropriation. 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.
FISCAL YEAR: 1991-92
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
OAR PRE-TRIAL DIVERSION GRANT 92-A7641
EXPENDITURE
· . COST CENTER~CAT~GORY
:DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
.1.1000390005661110 OAR PRE-TRIAL DIVERSION
TOTAL
REVENUES , DESCRIPTION
$62~753.00
$62,753.00
~AMOUNT
2100024000240421 .OAR~PRE~TRIAL DIVERSION $62,753.00
TOTAL $62,753.00
Agenda Item No. 12d. Appropriations: School Transfers.
The following memorandum dated September 5, 1991, was received from
Robert W.~ Paskel, Division Superintendents: ..........
"The 1991r92 Appropriation Ordinance appropriated the School Fund
monies~in fi~eic~ate~ories: . Instruction, Administration,~At~endanee &
Health, Pupil Transportation, Facilities-Operation/Maintena~ge, ~and
Facilities Construction/ModificatiOns. Due to time constraints, the
school-based allocations were appropriated in the ~!Instruction'
category rather than being sp!it~between multiple categories./· It<is
now requested that the.amounts~appropriated in the Instruction~ ~
category be distributed to specific line items as requested~by~the-
princiPals in their line item budgets. The five attachments(on
file) display appropriation transfers from 'Instruction' to 'Admini-
stration, Attendance &.Health! and also.to the-~Facilities Operation
& Maintenance' category. These transfers reference the school-based
budgets formedical'~supplies~ and local-and long distance telephone
service." -
MotionWas immediately~ offered~by Mr. Perkins and seconded by,.Mr. Bain to
adopt the following resolution approving the requested transfers~ Rol!_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.
FISCAL YEAR: 1991-92 ~.
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF-APPROPRIATION:
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
SCHOOLFUND TRANSFERS~,.
DESCRIPTION
DOLLAR
AMOUNT
APPROPRIATION TRANSFERS BY CATEGORIES: INSTRUCTION
. ':''.' -.ADMINISTRATION, ATTENDANCE. AND.HEALTH
~ ·.FACILITIES OPERATIONS/MAINTENANCE
APPROPRIATION TRANSFERS BY OBJECT GODES:
BROADUS.WOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
1220162220600400 ATTEND HEALTH-HEALTH SERV
1220162420600400~ FACILITY MAINT-BLDG SERVC
1220162420520302 FACILITY MAINT-BLDG SERVC
1220161411580000-'.INSTRUC/SUP~PRINCIPAL
(100,921.00)
6,854;00'~-:
94,067;00
MEDICAL & LAB SUPPLIES 264.00
TELEPHONErLOCAL 3,529.00
TELEPHONE-LONG DISTANCE 398.00
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES (4,191.00)
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 43)
BROWNSVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
1220262220600400 ATTEND HEALTH-HEALTH SER¥
1220262420520301 FACILITY MAINT-BLDG SERYC
1220162420520302 FACILITY MAINT-BLDG SERVC
1220261411580000 INSTRUC/SUP-PRINCIPAL
CROZET ELEMENTARY
1220362220600400
1220362420520301
1220362420520302
1220361411580000
SCHOOL
ATTEND HEALTH-HEALTH SER¥
FACILITY MAINT-BLDG SER¥C
FACILITY MAINT-BLDG SER¥C
INSTRUC/SUP-PRINCIPAL
GREER~:.ELEMENTARY! SCHOOL -: ~:"~
1220462220600400 ATTEND HEALTH-HEALTH SERV
1220462420520301 FACILITY MAINT-BLDG SERVC
12204624ff05203021,:FAC%LI%Y M~INT-BLDG SERVC
122046141%580000 INSTRUC/SUPrPRINCIPAL
HOLLYMEAD:.ELEMENTARY. SCHOOL
1220562220600400
1220562420520301
1220562420520302
1220561411580000
MERIWETHERLEWIS
ATTEND HBALTH~HEALTH SER¥
FACILITY MAINT-BLDG SERVC
FACILITY MAINT-BLDG SER¥C
INSTRUC/SUP-PILINCIPAL
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL'
1220662220600400
1220662420520301
1220662420520302
1220661411580000
ATTEND. HEALTH-HEALTH SER¥
FACILITY MAINT-BLDG SER¥C
FACILITY MAINT-BLDG SERYC
INSTRUC/SUP,PRINCIPAL
RED~HtLL:~I.F~YE~ARY~ .
1220762220600400 ATTEND HEALTH=HEALTH SERV
1220762420520301 FACILITY MAINT-BLDG SERVC
1220762420520302 FACILITY MAINT-BLDG SERVC
1220762420600700 FACILITY~MAINT=BLDG SER¥C
1220761411580000 INSTRUC/SUPrPRINCIPAL
SCOTTSVILLE ELEMENTARY'SCHOOL
1220962220600400
·1220962420520301
1220962420520302
1220962420600700
1220961411580000
ATTEND HEALTH-HEALTH SERV
FAGILITY MAINT-BLDG SERVC
FACILITY~.MAINT-B'LDG,SERVC
FACILITY MAINT-BLDG SERVC
INSTRUC/SUP~PRINCIPAL
STONE'ROBINSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
1221062220600400 ATTEND ItEALTH-HEALTH SER¥
1221062420520301 FACILITY MAINT,BLDG SE~tYC
1221062420520302 FACILITY MAINT-BLDG SERVC
122·1061411580000 INSTRUC/SUPrPRINCIPAL
STONY POINT ELEMENTARY>SCHOOL
1221162220600400 ATTEND HEALTH-HEALTH SER¥
1221162420520301 FACILtTY'iMAINT-BLDG SERVC
1221162420520302 FACILITYMAINT~BLDG SERVC
1221161411580000 INSTRUC/SUP-PRINCIPAL
WOODBROOK-EL~MENTARY~SCHOOL
1221262220600400 ATTENBHEALTH-HEALTH~SERV
1221262420520301 FACILITY MAINT-BLDG SERVC
1221262420520302 FACILITYMAINT-BLDG SER¥C
1221261411580000
YANCEYELEMENTARY
1221362220600400
1221362420520301
12211362420520302
1221362420600800
1221361411580000
INSTRUC/SUPrPRINCIPAL
SCHOOL
ATTEND HEALTH, HEALTH SER¥
FACILITY MAINT-BLDG SERVC
FACILITY~MAINT-BLDG SERVC
FACILITY MAINT-BLDG SERVC
INSTRUC/SUP-PRINCIPAL
319
MEDICAL & LAB SUPPLIES
TELEPHONE-LOCAL
TELEPHONE-LONG DISTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES
225.00
2,500.00
400.00
(3,125.00)
MEDICAL & LAB SUPPLIES 100.00
TELEPHONE-LOCAL 3,000.00
TELEPHONE-LONG DISTANCE 450.00
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES (3,550.00)
MEDICAL & LAB SUPPLIES 400.00
TELEPHONE-LOCAL 3,123.00
TELEPHONE-LONG DISTANCE 300.00
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES (3,823.00)
MEDICAL & LAB SUPPLIES 400.00
TELEPHONE-LOCAL 2,000.00
TELEPHONE-LONG DISTANCE' 500.00
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES (2,900.00)
MEDICAL &·LAB SUPPLIES 707.00
TELEPHONE-LOCAL 3,800.00
TELEPHO}IE-LONG DISTANCE 250.00
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES (4,757.00)
MEDICAL &-I~ SUPPLIES
TELEPHONE-LOCAL 1
TELEPHONE-LONG DISTANCE
REPAIR &MAINT SUPPLIES
MISCELLANEOUS, EXPENSES (1
MEDICAL & LAB SUPPLIES
TELEPHONE-LOCAL
TELEPHONE-LONG DISTANCE
VEHICLE & EQUIP FUEL
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES
120.00
,495.00
150.00
150.00
,9~5.oo)
100.00
2,500.00
250.00
.50.00
(2,900.00)
MEDICAL & LAB SUPPLIES
TELEPHONE-LOCAL 2,
TELEPHONE-LONG DISTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES~(2,
MEDICAL & LAB..SUPPLIES
TELEPHONE-LOCAL 2,
TELEPHONE-LONG'DISTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS'EXPENSES (2
MEDICAL~& LAB SUPPLIES
TELEPHONE-LOCAL 2
TELEPHONE-LONG DISTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES (2
MEDICAL, &LAB SUPPLIES
TELEPHONE-LOCAL
TELEPHONE-LONG DISTANCE
VEHICLE & EQUIP FUEL
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES
200 ..00
500.00
250.00
950.00)
115. O0
500.00
2·70.00
,8'85. oo)
100. O0
,554. O0
273.00
,927.00)
90..00
1,650.00
350.00-
:25.00
(2,115.00)
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 44)
32O
VIRGINIA L. MURRAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
1221562220600400 ATTEND HEALTH-HEALTH SERV MEDICAL & LAB SUPPLIES 485.00
1221562420520301 FACILITY MAINT-BLDG SER¥C TELEPHONE-LOCAL 3,880.00
1221562420520302 FACILITY MAINT-BLDG SERVC TELEPHONE-LONG DISTANCE 243.00
1221561411580000 INSTRUC/SUP-PRrNCIPAL MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES (4,608.00)
CALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
1221462220600400 ATTEND HEALTH-HEALTH SER¥ MEDICAL & LAB SUPPLIES 200.00
1221462420520301 FACILITY MAINT-BLDG SERVC TELEPHONE-LOCAL 3,984.00
~.1462420520302 FACILITY MAINT-BLDG SERVC TELEPHONE-LONG DISTANCE 360.00
1221462420600800 FACILITY MAINT-BLDG SER¥C REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES 230.00
1221461411580000 INSTRUC/SUP-PRINCIPAL MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES (4,774.00)
BURLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL
1225162220600400 ATTEND HEALTH-HEALTH SERV MEDICAL & LAB SUPPLIES 300.00
12'2.51.62420520301 ;FACILITY MAINT~BLDG SERYC
122516242052.0302 FACILITY~MAINT~BLDGSERVC
1225161411580000 INSTRUC/SUP-PRINCIPAL
HENLEYMIDDLE SCHOOL
1225262220600400 ATTEND HEALTH-HEALTH SER¥
1225262420520301..FACILITYMAINT-BLDG SER¥C
1225262420520302 FACILITYMAINT-BLD~ SERVC
1225261411580000 INSTRUC/SUP-PRINCIPAL
JOUETTMIDDLE SCHOOL
TELEPHONE-LOCAL 3,100.00
TELEPHONE-LONG DISTANCE 700.00
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES (4,100.00)
MEDICAL & LAB SUPPLIES 300.00
TELEPHONE-LOCAL 4,500.00
TELEPHONE-LONGDISTANCE 1,800.00
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES (6,600.00)
1225362220600400 ATTEND HEALTH~HEALTH.SERV MEDICAL!& LAB SUPPLIES 300.00
1225362420520301 FACILITY MAINT-.BLDGSERVC TELEPHONE-LOCAL 2,000.00
1225362420520302 FACILITY MAINT-BLDG SERVC TELEPHONE-LONG DISTANCE 1,000.00
1225361411580000 INSTRUC/SUP,PRINCIPAL MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES (3,300.00)
WALTONMIDDLE SCHOOL ....
1225462220600400 ATTEND HEALTH-HY_ALTH SER¥ MEDICAL~ & LAB SUPPLIES 700.00~
[225462420520301 FACILITY MAINT-BLDG SER¥C
1225462~20520302~ ~FACILITYMAINT,BLDG SERVC
1225461411580000 INSTRUC/SUPrPRINCIPAL
ALBEMARLE'HIGH SCHOOL ....
1230162220600400 ATTENDHEALTH,HEALTH SER¥
1230162420520301 FACILITY MAINT-BLDG SERYC
12301§2420520302 FACILITY MAINT-BLDG SER¥C
1230161411580000 iNSTRUC~SUP-PRINCIPAL
WESTERN ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL
1230262220600400 ATTENDHEALTH-HEALTH SER¥
TELEPHONE-LOCAL 3,500.00
TELEPHONE-LONGDISTANCE 1,000.00
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES (5,200.00)
MEDICAL&LAB SUPPLIES 814.00
TELEPHONE-LOCAL 12,109.0.0
TELEPHONE-LONG DISTANCE 2,891.00
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES(15,814.00)
MEDICAL.&.LAB SUPPLIES .. 634.00~
1230262420520301 FACILITY MAINT-BLDG SERVC TELEPHONE-LOCAL 9,840.00
1230262420520302 FACILITY MAINT-BLDG SERYC TELEPHONE-LONG DISTANCE-3,113.00
1230261411580000 INSTRUC/SUP~PRINCIPAL MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES(13,587.00)
MURRAY HIGH ~SCHOOL: .~-
1230362220600400 ATTEND HEALTH-HEALTH SERV MEDICAL,&LAB SUPPLIES 300.00
1230362420520301 FACILITY MAINT-BLDG SER¥C TELEPHONE-LOCAL 4,000.00
12.30362420520302 ~ FACILITY MAINT-BLDG SERVC TELEPHONE-LONG DISTANCE 600.00
123036141.1580000 INSTRUC/SUP~PRINCIPAL " MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES (4,900.O0)
.... TOTAL ..... $0.00
Agenda Item No. 12e. Appropriation: Student Assistance Program. The
following .memorandum dated September 3, 1992, was received from Dr. Robert W.
Paskel, Division Superintendent: .... - ·
. .. ~The Office of. the~ Governor of the .Commonwealth of ¥irginia~, using
~ ~ funds ~fr~m the U.S.: Department of Education. Drug-Free Schools.~and
Communities Act of 1986, is funding a Student Assistance Program grant.,
~for.-A-tbemarle County Schools for the 1991-92 fiscal year. The Student
Assistance'Program.is~ an' approach for assiSting students whOhave ......
~ problems with drugs, .alcohol or other behaviOrs' that prevent them from~:~.
being.~successful in school~ Its design is one'of intervention~ and
;,. prevention~ If the Student's behavior cannot be~.'appropriately dealt
with. within the educational setting, the student, with the permission
321
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 45)
of his parents, will be referred to an outside agency for assistance.
Through the grant, the number of contracts with students recommended
or identified through the Student Assistance Program will increase, a
summer counseling program will be established, and the need for
additional 'student assistance programs throughout the county's public
and private schools will be emphasized.
At its meeting on August 12, 1991, the School Board approved the
addition of $32,955.63 to the 1991-92 budget for the above mentioned
Student Assistance Program grant. The Board of Supervisors is re-
quested to amend the current budget to receive and disburse these
funds. Please refer to the attachment for the line item budget (on
Mrs. Humphris commented that she feels the County is, fortunate~to~receive
the fundsfor this program, She did not get'an idea,,however, ofhowmany
students:.are involved'in.the, Program, Mr~ Tucker replied that the~number of
students'is not indicated~ inDr; paskel'smemo~ He added'that the funds are
based on the need that isdetermined~, and.the school system:has.determined
that there~is a need for these funds,. He noted that this program provides for
professional services and instruction, etc., for staff, and he thinks that the
number of students in the program would vary.
Mr~'Bowie suggested that_this'question be_asked at the Joint School Board
and Board of Supervisors meeting, next?'week- He Said~that the Supervisors
could then find out about the Program as well aswhere themoney, is going.
~ Mrs. Humphris then moved deferra~ qf the Student Assistance Program
appropriation until October 9, 1991. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was
called, and the-motion carried' by the following ,recorded~ vote': ....... . .""-
AYES: ."Messrs. Bain, :Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphri'sl :Mr; Perkins. andMr-..Way.
NAYS: 'None ......
Agenda Ite~n 'No. 13. Other'. Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Mr. Tucker~totd the Board members~that the'planning &Coordination
Council (PACC) has created different.advisory committees from time to time to
work on planning areas such as the~one that was just completed on Route 20
South relating to the Blue Ridge Hospital. He said that the next one will
invo:lve the-Milton Airport study, area, and he needs two'citizenappointees for
that. committee~' He said that usually the appointees are taken.from the
district inwhich-the study area'iS located. The .study'area.'now (Milton,) lies
is-inMr. Way's. district.. He asked for the names of two people sometime this
month. -
Mr. Bain stated that he will make copies of information on ~he Rivanna
Solid,Waste Authority/Ivy Landfill project for everyone,- He asked the Board
toconsider joining some of the.other counties in requesting the General
Assembly not to make all of the landfill requirements retroactive because the
costs areprohibitive.~He-said the costs_are:~evenmore, than~the,figures that
he had discussedearlier.
Mr. Bowerman commented-that Mr. Kevin Cox gave the Board-some documenta-
tion tonight~regarding Iand".use in theurban area; He asked' Mr. Tucker if-he
was intending, to puttogether, some-sort of an analysis;of options availableto
the Board, if the Board choOses to consider the matter; Mr. Tucker answered,
Mr. Bowie remarked.that the State Board for Community,Colleges is'having
its~meeting in Charlottesville on October 21 and 22..He has a request for a
Board-member to. be anna luncheon on October 21 with Lt. Governor Beyer. He
asked.if any Boardmember would care to attend. Mrs~ Humphris stated that She
would go~ .-
322
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 46)
Next, Mr. Bowie stated that he has a letter from Mayor Alvin Edwards
suggesting that another Joint Transportation Committee meeting be scheduled.
Mr. Bowie thinks that this is a good idea, and if there are no objections from
the other Board members, he will have Mayor Edwards set up the meeting. Mr.
Bowie will then inform this Board as to when the meeting will take place. He
noted that President Casteen has also been invited. Mr. Tucker asked if the
idea is to have the. original committee meet together. Mr. Bowie answered that
he thinks this is correct. Mr. Tucker stated that the meeting may not include
the entire Board and Council.
Mr. Bowie responded that in the past a room in the County, City or at the
University was selected for the joint meeting, and anyone who is interested
camcome~ He:reiterated that the-meeting is for the Joint Transportation
COmmittee.
Mr, ,Bowie stated:~.that he has...received'.a letter, from VDoT wanting to brief
the Board on the latest status of the Route 29 NOrth, Alternative t0 Plan, but
he-did not:schedule it as a meeting'item. He said if it is all right with:
other Board.members, he Would respond by telling VDoT to schedule a public
hearing, and this Board woutd make a'presentation at the public hearing~
':Mr;" Bowie then stated that yesterday's newspaper carried an item about an
independent study group from Texas, in which Albemarle County was listed as
being in the~ top' three percent of 'the; most efficient in the~Nation for-its
management of fiscal matters and financial!affairs. He thinks that every
employee in:the entire~ County i§~ responsible for this, under:Mr., Tucker! s
leadership. He added that this study relates to last year and this year. He
asked Mr. Tucker to convey the Board's ...... thanks and congratulations to the
entire staff.
' Mr;. Bowerman..remarked: that~_~one ~of the arguments~ that. the opponents · to. the
meats tax;have made is-to questiOn:the-fiscal ability of the. County;to provide
efficient service-.. He said that"the 'opponents indicate that the. County has
plenty of,money, and there .is waste in a lot of .areas. He thinks that this
study should "lay that question to rest," if people will look at the facts.
Mr~- Bain commented: that he hears-the same. thing, in-the rural areas
relating to the meals tax. I{e said that people are: telling.him that-they will
consider the. meals.tax, if' the County will stop spending its money on. staff,
etc. He-added that he takes a lot of time talking to these people, and
sometimes he can.satisfy' the' people and sometimes' he can't. I{e went on to say
that nobody is saying the County can!t improve.
Mrs~ Humphris remarked that she is pleased that the. County is in the top
three percent in the Nation for its fiscal affairs. She said that the County
is using its.resources effectively, and she .thinks~that thissituation~should~
be usedeffectively in tryingto-get:~the meals tax approved~bythe voters-.
At 10:05 p.m., Mr. Bain offered motion for.the Board~to adjourn into
executive session for a discussion of personnel matters. Mrs. Humphris
seconded the motion. ~Roll..was~called, and the motion carried, by the-following
recorded vote: ..... '
AYES: Mess~s. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr..Perkins mnd~Mr..Way.
NAYS:~ None. - ·
At 10:45 p.m., the Board reconvened into regular session. Motion was
offeredbyMr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman.~to:adopt the following-resolu-
tion ...... '
- . . ~ERTIFICATION OF' .EXECLITIVE MIrlFIq~G
,%~-IERE~S, the.Albemarle County Board of Supervisorshas convened
anexecutive meeting on thisdate pursuant:.to an. affirmativerecorded
vote and in accordance, with'the provisions of.The ¥irginia~Freedom of
.Information. Act; and
323'
October 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 47)
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires
certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such
executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's
knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from
open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the
executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and
(ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the
motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or
considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
AYe: -...Messrs. Bain, Bowermm~, Bowie~ :~[rs. Hnmphr.is., Mr.~ Perkins and
~YS: None~
ABS~D~O~~: None.
A~ST. AJ~ DURING ~0']~: None.
Agenda- I tern~ No ~ ~ %4.. -~ ;Adj ourn;
befor~-.the'Boar~, themeeting_was immediately adjourned.
~ ~),~,~: CHAIRMAN
There~ being no ,further business ~to come