1988-06-01June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
271
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on June 1, 1988, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room #7, County
Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs.
Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 7:32 P.M.),
Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R.
St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and
Con~nunity Development.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
7:33 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke,
seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve Item 4.1 on the Consent Agenda and to accept
the remaining items as information. There was no further discussion. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recoded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Item 4.1. Statements of Expenses (Stat~ Compensation Board) for the
Department of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail, for
the Month of May, 1988, were approved as presented.
Item 4.2. Rappahannock Electric Cooperative - Notice dated May 13, 1988,
that application has been filed with the State Corporation Commission to amend
its terms and conditions to allow limited repairs on the water heaters of
members who participate in the Load Management Program; received as informa-
tion. ~
Item 4.3. Virginia Power - Letter dated May 25, 1988, from Mr. David W.
Roop, District Manager, explaining why Virginia Power has asked the State
Corporation Commission to grant an eight percent increase in revenues effec-
tive July 1, 1988; received as information.
Item 4.4. Division of Historic Landmarks - Letter dated May 19, 1988,
concerning an interest in including CLIFTON on the Virginia Landmarks Regis-
ter; received as information.
Item 4.5. A copy of the Planning Commission Minutes for May 17, 1988,
was received as information.
Item 4.6. Copy of letter from Jon C. DuFresne, District Traffic Engi-
neer, dated May 17, 1988, to Ms. Valerie Grottenthaler, concerning installa-
tion of a traffic signal at the intersection of Route 1520 (Hollymead Drive)
on Route 29 North; received as information.
Agenda Item No. 5. Public Hearing: An Ordinance to partially vacate a
plat entitled "Plat of Lots 3 10" Northwood~i. Neighborhood, so as to relocate
right-of-way on Lots 9 and 10. (This hearing was advertised in the Daily
Progress on May 17 and May 24, 1988.)
272
June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting
(Page 2)
Mr. Charles Burgess, Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report as
set out in full in the minutes of April 28, 1988.
Mr. St. John presented a legal perspective on the applicant's request.
He said this was a legislative decision the Board could make; there was no law
telling the Board which action to take. He pointed to the plat dated Janu-
ary 18, 1979, showing the Northwood subdivision as approved by the Planning
Commission. He said the surveyor, Mr. R. O. Snow drew a setback line around
the cul-de-sac which differed from the setback required b~ the Zoning Ordi-
nance. Despite this mistake, the plat was approved by the Planning Commis-
sion. Mr. St. John then indicated the plats for lots ni~e and ten, dated
February 23, 1987, which shows the house sites behind the setback line.
Although the sites do not violate the setback line as shown on the plat, the
setback line itself is wrong and does not meet the requirements on the Zoning
Ordinance, he said. A building permit was issued, the houses were built and
approved by County building inspectors.
Mr. St. John said a second mistake compounded the problems caused by Mr.
Snow drawing the wrong setback line. He pointed to the plats for lots nine
and ten and showed the Board where the cul-de-sac was supposed to be built and
where it was actually built. If either the setback was drawn correctly, or
the cul-de-sac was built as platted, Mr. St. John said, neither the house on
lot nine nor the one on lot ten would be in violation of the Zoning Ordinance.
He said the compounding of these mistakes created the violation. If the Board
adopts an ordinance to vacate part of the plat of lots 3~10, Mr. St. John
said, this ordinance would amend the plat to show the cui~-de-sac as it was
actually built, with a setback line that complied with the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Lindstrom said some of the opponents to this application were con-
cerned that adopting the ordinance may make it more difficult to have the
subdivision road dedicated for public use. He noted that the road has a
right-of-way of only 30 feet and said more right-of-way may have to be dedi-
cated. He asked what effect dedicating this additional ~ight-of-way would
have on the other lots along this road. Mr. Burgess sai41 it would have no
effect on houses already built, but he thought lots five, six and seven, which
were barely two acres each, would probably diminish to under two acres if the
owners granted the easement necessary for the road to be dedicated to public
use.
Mr. BUrgess said another problem the Board might consider is what to do
about the road frontage of lots nine and ten. He said the subdivision was
approved in 1979, and the Zoning Ordinance then did not address road frontage,
only lot width.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if any other legal issues would remain unresolved if
the ordinance vacating the plat were adopted. Mr. St. John said he did not
think there would be any more zoning violations. Mr. Lindstrom said Mr.
Burgess, with his point about road frontage, raised the question of whether
lots nine and ten would have to meet current zoning regulations or the regula-
tions in effect when the subdivision was approved.
Mr. Bain asked if approving the ordinance would caus~ lot eight to lose a
sliver of property, a sliver that was not included in theiplatted cul-de-sac.
He said this ordinance could be construed as a taking. Mt. St. John said he
did not notice this problem. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Cul-de-sac could
shown as it was actually built on lots nine and ten and as platted for the
rest of the lots. Mr. St. John said this could be done.
At 7:55 P.M., Mr. Way opened the public hearing and ~sked the applicant,
Mr. William H. Bailey to address the Board. i
Mr. Bailey said he bought lots nine and ten at the end of the cul-de-sac
without knowing that there would be any problem. When helbegan building on
the lots, he realized that there was a problem, he said, 4o he came to the
County and asked for help. He said County representativeM told him the road
bond had been released and the road was accepted as it was built, so he could
measure his setback from the edge of the pavement. Mr. BAiley said it was
critical that he locate the house on lot ten as close to ~he setback line as
possible in order to place the drainfield in a location t~at would not require
pumping. He said Mr. R. O. Snow staked off the location Of the house, the
June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
273
County inspectors inspected the site, and issued a building permit. He said
he also built a house on lot nine, sold the house to someone who sold the
house again a year later, all with no problem whatsoever.
In December 1987, Mr. Bailey said, Mr. David LaRue, the owner of lot
eight in Northwood, lodged a complaint with the County Zoning Administrator
concerning the locations of the houses on lots nine and ten. He said Mr.
Burgess advised him to get a variance through the Board of Zoning Appeals
(BZA) and waived the fees for the process. He said the BZA denied the request
in the hope that he and his neighbors could work out their problems. He said
he does not think the BZA realized that he still needed a variance, regardless
of how well he and his neighbors cooperated. He said he appeared before the
BZA once again, and once again his request was appealed. He said he has taken
this matter to court and was told that the court was not the proper place for
this request to be heard. He said the Board was his last resort.
He said he believes the opposition to his request has become a vendetta
against him personally and has centered more on the road than on the setback.
He said his neighbors want a state-maintained road, which this road was never
intended to be. If the road did become a state-maintained road, he said, the
additional right-of-way that would be needed would make at least seven of the
lots cease to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. He said he is becoming very
frustrated. Every time his request is denied or deferred, his neighbors grow
more and more certain that they have a legitlimate reason to harass him. He
said the,mistakes made by the County have cost him a lot of time, effort and
money and a damaged reputation. He said he has a buyer for the house he built
on lot ten, but the buyer will not close until this problem is resolved. He
asked that the Board do whatever it can to help him.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Bailey when he learned of the problem with the
plats. Mr. Bailey said a neighbor told one Of his workmen after they had dug
the foundation for one of the houses that the house was too close to the
cul-de-sac. Mr. Lindstrom asked if he knew 6f the problem after he received a
building permit. Mr. Bailey said "no", and added that he came to the Planning
staff before he received the building permit'and told them that the cul-de-sac
did not seem to be in the right place. He said he thought as long as he
stayed outside the setback line drawn on the plat, his houses would comply
with the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom sa~d he wanted to make sure that Mr.
Bailey informed the County staff of the probIem in a way that would alert them
to what his neighbors told Mr. Bailey, that ~he house was too close to the
cul-de-sac. Mr. Bailey said he discussed this problem with the County before
he talked with the neighboring landowners.
Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Bailey when he closed on the lots. Mr. Bailey said
he thought it was in 1985. Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Bailey when he first realized
there was a problem and came to the County. When he came to get his building
permits, he said. Mr. Bowie asked if he men~iioned the setback problem to the
County staff. Mr. Bailey said "no", because he did not realize then that
there was a setback problem. Mr. Bowie asked what problem Mr. Bailey did
mention to the staff. Mr. Bailey said he was concerned that the cul-de-sac
was not where it was supposed to be. He said the setback was supposed to be
90 feet from the center of the cul-de-sac and~ he could not locate the center.
Mr. Bailey said he was told as long the house was built 75 feet from the edge
of the pavement, it would be within the regulations. Mr, Bowie asked when Mr.
Bailey began construction. He answered that he began sometime in 1986 and
finished in the summer of 1987.
Mr. Page Williams, an attorney for the Bailey Construction Company,
addressed the Board. He said his client now Owned lot ten; Dr. and Mrs. David
Hill now owned lot nine. He said his client Seeks to have the access easement
vacated for only lots nine and ten, not lot eight.
He said the situation his client finds himself in is a textual violation
of the Zoning Ordinance; it is not a violation that is readily visible from
either the records in the Clerk's office or from a look at the properties and
houses themselves. He said his client did not develop Northwood subdivision;
a company called Country Living did. Mr. Williams said Mr. Bailey had no
connection with this company or with Mr. John Girdler, who ran the company.
He said his client has pointed to a host of e=rors made by the County staff,
274
June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting.
(Page 4)
including the approval of the subdivision plat with the setback drawn incor-
rectly.
Mr. Williams said Mr. Don Gaston, Senior Planner, wrote a memorandum to
Mr. Girdler, dated December 8, 1978, concerning the preliminary and final
plats for the Northwood subdivision. After reviewing the preliminary plat,
Mr. Gaston wrote "can alter building setback to 75 feet from right-of-way line
or 90 feet from centerline" and "cul-de-sac needs radius of 50 feet". Mr.
Williams said the Board cannot ask his client to seek redress from Mr. Snow,
since Mr. Snow would just point to this memorandum and say he was relying on
information from the County.
Mr. Williams said there was a difference of 35 feet between the setback
as it ought to have been and the setback as it was. He said the house on lot
ten was 33 feet from the incorrectly drawn setback and therefore was two feet
over the correct setback line. The house on lot nine, he said, was 19 feet
from the incorrectly drawn line and so was 16 feet over [he correct setback
line.
The second problem, Mr. Williams said, is that the road was built in the
wrong place, yet the County released the bond held on the road anyway. He
said Mr. Roger W. Ray, of R. O. Snow and R. W. Ray, Inc., wrote a letter to
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., then the Director of Planning~ dated March 9, 1983,
which stated: "This is to advise that I have inspected the road that was
constructed to serve Northwoods neighborhood, located approximately two miles
north of Watts, and certify that it was constructed in accordance with the
attached As-Built Road Plans". Mr. Williams said it was:~clear from a copy of
the as-built road plans that the road was built in the wrong location.
Nevertheless, on June 28, 1983, Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, wrote a
memorandum to Ms. Linde Thompson, Inspections Department,~ asking that the
bonds for this project be released. While the developer may have made the
error, Mr. Williams said, the County tacitly approved the mistake by releasing
the bond. He reminded the Board that all this occurred before his client was
involved with the property.
Mr. Williams said lawyers and surveyors rely on the information the
County provides. Usually, he said, the County does a good job. He showed the
Board copies of two independent surveys. Dr. and Mrs. Hill hired Mr. Gary
Whel~n to survey lot nine before they bought the house an~ this survey also
shows the 90-foot building setback line clearly drawn onlthe plat. Mr.
Williams said B. Aubrey Huffman and Associates also surveyed the lot on
January 26, 1988, when the Mr. and Mrs. Ford planned to buy lot nine; this
survey also shows the 90-foot setback. Each of these surveyors relied on the
setback line shown on the original subdivision plat.
Mr. Williams said the County staff also relied on the information con-
tained on the original plat. The Zoning staff approved the building permits,
the Building Inspector approved the foundation and occupancy permits were
issued for both houses, all on the basis of the setback ~picted on the
original plat.
Mr. Williams read the following from section 15.1.496.3 of the Code of
Virginia: "Where a building permit has been issued and cOnstruction of the
building for which such permit was issued is subsequently!~sought to be pre-
vented, restrained, corrected or evaded as a violation of~ithe zoning ordinance
by suit filed within 15 days after the start of construction by a person who
had no actual notice of the issuance of the permit, the court may hear and
determine issues raised in the litigation even though no appeal was taken from
the decision of the administrative officer to the board of zoning appeals."
He said he interprets this paragraph to mean the homeowners had 15 days to
begin a lawsuit to stand on their rights regarding a zoning dispute. He said
his client began building the houses in January and Febru&ry, 1987; no one
filed a complaint until December, 1987. ~'
Mr. Williams said he has spoken with Mr. Jeff Echols~ Assistant Resident
Engineer for the VDoT, about the implications of this problem for Sylvan Lane,
the road running through the Northwood Neighborhood. Mr.{Williems said the
State requires a minimum right-of-way of 40 feet; the County requires 50 feet.
The plat shows an undedicated right-of-way of 30 feet. Adcording to Mr.
Echols, he said, one of the curves may need to be modified. The State
June 1, 1988 (Regular Night. Meeting)
(Page 5)
275
requires six inches of stone base and 20 feet of pavement; Sylvan Lane has a
four-inch base and 14 feet of pavement. For cul-de-sacs, the State requires a
radius of pavement of 45 feet and a right-of'way with a radius of 55 feet.
The State standards for cul-de-sacs changed in 1981. Even if the cul-de-sac
on Sylvan Lane were built out to the full extent of the existing right-of-way,
there would still need to be additional right-of-way dedicated around the
cul-de-sac in order for it to be accepted into the State Secondary Highway
system.
Mr. Williams said he believes his client has exercised caution and good
faith. He said his client relied on professionals, on surveys and the County
staff. He said this problem has caused his client great hardships: he is
unable to sell his house and interest is piling up on his overdue construction
loan. Mr. Williams accused Messrs. Dunlap, Falls, Larue, Lucas and Newcomb,
the objectors, of exploiting his client's situation in order to get a better
road for themselves.
Mr. Ron Wiles addressed the Board and said he was legal counsel for Dr.
and Mrs. Hill. He said his client bought lot nine on June 19, 1987, and he
represented them at the closing of the contract. Mr. W.ite.~ said both he and
his clients relied upon the occupancy permit issued by the County. He said
the lender also relied on the occupancy permit to make the loan.
Mr. W~te.y-said he does not wish to debate when Mr. Bailey learned of the
problems ,With the setback and the cul-de-sac. He said the problems were not
brought to the attention of his client untilsix months after his clients had
closed on the property. He said his clients are innocent parties in this
situation who have relied entirely upon the facts made available to them by
the County staff and in the County records.
Mr. Wit'ey said it was unlikely that his iclients and their neighbors could
come to an agreement, because the other property owners want the Bailey
Construction Company to pay for the reconstruction of Sylvan Lane. Unlike
these property owners, he said, his clients pUrchased lot nine partly because
it was on a private, gravel road. He said his clients consider a paved,
public road to be a bit of "surburbia" they do not want near their house. Mr~
~l~ said there are too many conflicting interests involved for a private
settlement to be a possibility. He asked that the Board help resolve this
problem, which was created in part by County employees. He said approving
this ordinance and leaving the houses and th~ cul-de-sac as they stand would
be fair to his client and would do no damage to the rest of the property
owners.
Mr. Roger'Wiley said he represented five property owners in the Northwood
subdivision, who opposed the request. He said there are ten lots in
Northwood; besides the five owned by his clients, are two owned by Mr. Bailey;
one, sold by Mr. Bailey and belonging to Mr. and Mrs. Hill; one Owned by an
employee of Mr. Bailey; and the last owned by someone who wishes to remain
neutral. If the Board adopts the ordinance, he said, it imposes a replatting
of the subdivision on half of the property owners in the subdivision. He said
Mr. Bain has made the point that the replatti~g may even involve a taking of
property from Mr. Larue, although this is not one of the main reasons for the
stand his clients have taken.
Mr. Wiley said his clients view this request as an attempt by Mr. Bailey
to have the County step in and take sides in ~hat his clients think should be
a private dispute between the owners of the 16ts in the subdivision. He said
Mr. Bailey and his attorney are trying to blame the County for the situation.
He said he agrees the County has made some mistakes, but he does not think
those mistakes constitute a basis for the Board to step in and impose its will
on some people who are against the replattingi
Mr. Wiley said his clients made repeated attempts to bring the violation
to the attention of the County staff and Mr. Bailey during the construction of
these two houses. Whatever the reason, by acdident, design, misunderstanding
or miscommunication, their warnings were not heeded. He said Mr. Bailey said
tonight that the topography of one of the lot~ forced him to build the house
as close as possible to the setback line because of the septic field. Mr.
Wiley said this necessity may have caused Mr. iBailey, consciously or
276
June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting
(Page 6)
unconsciously, not to suggest to the surveyors or engineers that there may be
a problem.
Mr. Wiley said both the BZA and the court turned down Mr. Bailey's
request and for good reason. Mr. Wiley said both of these bodies turned Mr.
Bailey down because the problem was one of his own making. He said he does
not think the Board should bail him out now.
Mr. Wiley said his clients do not wish to have the two houses torn down.
He said his clients recognize that redrawing the plat in some fashion is the
most reasonable way to deal with the problem now that a violation has
occurred. He said his clients believe that, given their repeated warnings to
Mr. Bailey, he should negotiate with them to obtain accePtable terms and not
come to the Board for an added advantage in the dispute.
Mr. Wiley said Mr. Williams suggested his clients are trying to exploit
Mr. Bailey. In reality, Mr. Wiley said, he thinks it is just the opposite:
Mr. Bailey is asking the Board to help him take unfair advantage of the rest
of the property owners.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Wiley how the location of the houses built on
lots nine and ten directly affected his clients or their property values. Mr.
Wiley said when his clients bought their houses in a rural subdivision, they
sought privacy, a feeling of spaciousness and as much space between the houses
as they could get. He said he thought the County ordinances were established
to provide these amenities in rural subdivisions. For whatever the reason, he
said, these ordinances were not followed and his clients do not think the
County should shoulder all the-blame.
If the Board granted this request, Mr. Bowie asked,~iwhat would the
opposing lot owners, except for the owner of lot eight, Iose? Mr. Wiley said
the impact of this decision may be insignificant on the Lots at the beginning
of the subdivision. He said the houses on lots nine and 'ten are between 20
and 50 feet closer to the house on lot eight than they s~ould be. Mr. Wiley
said he does not think the Board should try to assess the damage these viola-
tions have caused property owners. He said all he and his clients are asking
of the Board is that it remain neutral and let the parties involved work out
an agreement. ~
Mr. Wiley said Mr. Bailey has refused to discuss a proposal his clients
have made for handling this situation. He said Mr. Bailey has refused to
offer his neighbors any compensation for the violations. Instead, he said,
Mr. Bailey has tried every avenue he can think of to avoid having to come to
an agreement with the rest of the property owners. He agreed that the Board
has the legal right to amend a subdivision plat without the agreement of all
the property owners in a subdivision, but, he said, the Board usually exer-
cises this right because of difficulties in locating one 6f the owners. He
said it was unusual for someone to ask the Board to replat a subdivision when
half the owners of lots in the subdivision objected to the replatting.
Mr. Lindstrom said it seems to him that Mr. Wiley and his clients are
asking the Board not to interfere so they can take advanthge of the situation.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Wiley could give him any reason why, other than to
accommodate the clients' desire to negotiate with Mr. Bailey, the Board should
deny Mr. Bailey's request. If, as Mr. Wiley has suggeste~, the Board is going
to have to correct this plat sooner or later, he does not~understand why it
cannot be done now, Mr. Lindstrom said. He said Mr. Wiley's clients should
seek civil damages, if they feel they have suffered damages.
Mr. Bowie 'said he thinks there is only one property 6wner whose property
is affected by the violation. He said he walked through ~his subdivision and
only one lot owner can see the houses on lots nine and te~ from his house.
Mr. Wiley said he thinks the Board should consider w~at it is being asked
to do. His clients tried to warn Mr. Bailey that he was perpetuating a
mistake and their warning went unheeded. He said Mr. Large came down to the
Clerk of the Court s offmce, found the necessary records mn an hour and talked
to Mr. Keeler, who agreed that a violation had occurred, iMf. Wiley said Mr.
Bailey could have done this, but did not. Now, Mr. Wiley ~said, Mr. Bailey is
June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
277
asking the Board to side with him, the one who made the problem for himself,
and not with the people who tried to stop the mistake from happening.
If Mr. Bailey had appeared before the Board before he built the houses,
Mr. Lindstrom said, he thinks the Board would have had to do the same thing it
is being asked to do tonight, because Mr. Bailey would have been a bona fide
purchaser of a lot which carried with it a mistake created by the County.
Mr. Wiley said it has not been clearly established that Mr. Bailey was a
bona fide purchaser of the lots. In the interests of time, he said, he asked
the citizens who opposed the ordinance to stand. Eight people stood.
Since no one else wished to speak either for or against the request, Mr.
Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
In the packet presented to the Board from the opponents, Mr. St. John
said, there is a quote from Judge Tremblay stating that "Mr. Bailey, whether
out of moral obligation or economic necessity, should negotiate with the
neighborhood to settle what is a private contract dispute" Mr. St. John
said he was at the hearing on behalf of the BZA and remembers something quite
different. He said he remembered Judge Tremblay saying this was an inequity
upon Mr. Bailey and Dr. and Mrs. Hill. Judge Trembley also said that Mr.
Bailey and Dr. and Mrs. Hill experienced a h~rdship, but this hardship was not
created by the statutory criteria used to grant a variance, nor was it created
by Mr. Bailey himself. Mr. St. John said the judge stated that if he were
sitting as a court of equity, he could do something about the inequity;
instead, he was sitting under statutory guidelines to review an action taken
by the BZA and he could not fit the inequity~within those guidelines. Mr. St.
John said Judge Tremblay stated the County made the mistakes, and it was up to
the County to correct them. Mr. St. John said he does not see how the judge
could have said this is a private contract dispute, because this is not a
contract dispute. The applicant has never had a contract with the objectors,
he said.
Mr. Way asked Mr. St. John what would happen if the Board decided to stay
neutral in this matter. Mr. St. John said he does not believe the Board could
remain neutral; he thinks the Board must either adopt or not adopt the ordi-
nance. If the Board does not adopt the ordinance, Mr. Lindstrom added, the
contract on lot ten will fall through and Mr. Bailey and Dr. and Mrs. Hill
will be stuck with lots they cannot do anythi~g~ with.
Mr. Bowie said if he were building a ho~se and a neighbor said it was in
the wrong place and County representatives said it was in the right place, he
would probably believe the County officials, i~ He said he also believes that an
approved plat, signed by the proper County auihorities, entitles an owner to
the legal right to build his house in accordance with the plat. He said he
does not think the owners of lots three, fou~, five and seven will lose
anything if the cul-de-sac is replatted. He !Said he thinks lot eight should
be excluded from the replatting so there can :be no question of taking.
Mr. Lindstrom said the plat would have to be corrected to show changes in
the right-of-way only on lots nine and ten. ~n the revised plat, lot eight
will show the right-of-way as originally appreved for the cul-de-sac; lots
nine and ten will show the cul-de-sac as-built.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the
ordinance as advertised, to correct the plat Go show a change only as to Lots
9 and 10; on Lot 8 only to show right-of-way ~s it originally appeared on the
recorded plat, and on Lots 9 and 10 to show t~e as-built cul-de-sac. There
was no further discussion. Roll was called a~d the motion carried by the
following recoded vote: ~
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
None. ~
278
June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting.
(Page 8)
AN ORDINANCE TO PARTIALLY VACATE PLAT OF LOTS 3-10,
NORTHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD LOCATED ON 30 FEET RIGHT-OF-WAY OFF STATE ROUTE
600 TO RELOCATE RIGHT-OF-WAY ON LOTS 9 AND 10 NORTHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD
WHEREAS, a plat entitled "Plat of Lots 3-10, Northwood
Neighborhood, Located on 30'. R.0.Way Off St. Rt. 600 about 2.0 miles
North of Watts, Albemarle Co., Va., for John Girdler" and dated
January 18, 1979, was approved by the designated agent for the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on September 10, 1979 and is
recorded in the Clerk's Office for the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 690, page 379; and
WHEREAS, the aforesaid plat shows a 30' right-of-way access
for all lots to State Route 600, which platted right-of-way culminates
in a platted cul-de-sac located largely on Lots 9 and 10, Northwood
Neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, said plat shows a building setback line 90 feet
from the center of the 30' platted right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the location of the cul-de-sac as built by the
developer, Country Living, Inc., does not conform to the platted
location; and
WHERFAS, residences have been constructed~and Certificates
of Occupancy issued by the County for houses on both Lots 9 and 10,
Northwood Neighborhood, which houses are both set back beyond the
platted building setback line and at least 75 feet from the edge of
the cul-de-sac as built; and
WHEREAS, Section 10.4 of the County Zoning Ordinance
requires a minimum front setback of 75 feet measured from the street
right-of-way line; and
WHEREAS, in order to bring the present houses on Lots 9 and
10, Northwood Neighborhood into compliance, it is ne.cessary to par-
tially relocate the lines of the access easement oni'Lots 9 and 10; and
WHEREAS, notice as required by Section 15~1-431 of the Code
of Virginia has been given;
NOW THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle that the lines of the 30' right-of-way as ~located on Lots 9
and 10 on the plat of Lots 3 through 10, Northwood N~ighborhood, of
record in the Clerk's Office for the Circuit Court o~f Albemarle County
are hereby VACATED pursuant to Section 15.1.482(b) of the Code of
Virginia. In place of the vacated lines on the aforesaid plat are the
lines designated "Relocated Access Esmt. Line" as shown on a plat by
R. 0. Snow, Inc., dated 2/12/88 entitled "Plat Showing Relocated
Access Easement on Lots 9 & 10, Northwood Neighborhood Located on 30'
R/W Off St. Rt. 600 about 2.0 mi. N. of Watts, Albemarle County,
Virginia," a copy of which plat is attached hereto and shall be
recorded in the Clerk's Office for the Circuit CourtS, of Albemarle
County, Virginia, along with a certifiedcopy of this ordinance.
(Note: The Board recessed at 9:07 P.M. and reconvened at 9.'18 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-88-24. Mrs. Lewis Rosenstiel~i(Blandemar Subdivi-
sion). To cluster 61 lots (each under 21 acres) and leav& two residue tracts
of 315 and 600 acres, zoned RA. Cluster size lots range from three to 18
acres to be served by proposed internal public roads. Applicant proposes to
retain the right to divide the two residue tracts into seven lots with a
minimum lot size of 21 acres. Property located on west s{de of Route 708,
approximately two miles from the intersection with Route 29 South. Tax Map
88, Parcel 1. Samuel Miller District. (This petition was advertised in The
Daily Progress on May 17 and May 24, 1988.) ~
June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
279
Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows:
"Petition: Mrs. Lewis Rosenstiel petitions the Board of Supervisors
to issue a special use permit to allow 61 lots to be clustered on
1376.8 acres (Section 10.5.2. of the Zoning Ordinance). The cluster-
ing of lots on this property will result in two large residue tracts,
one of 315 acres and the other of 600 acres which will remain in
agricultural land use. The property is located on the west side of
Route 708 (west), approximately two miles from its intersection with
Route 29 South. Zoned RA, Rural Areas, Tax Map 88, Parcel 1. Samuel
Miller Magisterial District.
Immediate Environments and Existing Characteristics: This property
and the immediate surrounding area has topography ranging from
moderately rolling hills to areas of critical slope. Portions of the
Hardware Agricultural/Forestal District are adjacent to the southeast
and northwest. The area is typically rUral with limited low density
residential development.
Comprehensive Plan Recommendations: This property is recommended in
the Comprehensive Plan as Rural Areas, and is located in Rural
Area 3. Residential density standards in the Comprehensive Plan
recommend a maximum of one dwelling unit per five acres for those
lands located outside the water supply, watershed areas.
Applicant's Request: This special permit is a request for the
clustering of lots to achieve a decreased lot size, while preserving
large residue tracts. 'By-right', the applicant could achieve three
two-acre lots, with the remaining acreage divided into sixty-five, 21
acre lots. The applicant is therefore requesting to cluster 61 lots,
with the remaining development rights to be allocated to the large
residue tracts.
The 445 acre Blandemar Residential Community established by this
proposal will consist of 61 lots served by public roads. The home-
owners association for this community wiil administer 93 acres of
'common land' which will provide a buffe~r zone from adjacent farm
activities and will also allow for potential recreational uses. Two
potential lake sites are identified on the plan in the common area.
The average lot size is six acres with a minimum lot size of three
acres. Smaller lots are arranged in the flatter areas and adjacent
to potential lake site. Large lots are generally found on the
steeper wooded slopes.
Ail lots have been placed carefully in an effort to conceal viewing
the house as much as possible from outside the subdivision.
Land Use Data:
Lots five acres or less
Lots greater than five acres
Common areas
Rosenstiel Tract
Blandemar Farm Tract
Roadways and other
Total
# of ~ots Total Acreage
34 142
~7 191
~- 93
{1 315
il 600
~- 35
~ 1,376
The applicant proffers the following conditions for the special use
permit:
1. Applicant proposes to reconfigure 6ii lots to cluster residential
uses away from agriculture activity ~mreas.
Applicant proposes that the Rosenstiel tract (315 acres) and
Blandemar Farm (600 acres) shall be ~added to the Hardware
Agricultural/Forestal District.
In exchange for these additions to the Agricultural/Forestal
District, the applicant proposes to retain the right to further
subdivide the tracts as indicated.
280
June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Rosenstiel tract to be divided into not more than four
parcels (one unit per 78.7 acres).
Blandemar Farm to be divided into not more than three
parcels (one unit per 200 acres).
Special Use Permit Criteria: Since this petition does not propose an
increase over the number of lots allowed 'by right', most of the
criteria for the review of special use permits (Section 10.5.2.1 of
the Zoning Ordinance) are not applicable. Nevertheless, all criteria
will be provided for informational purposes. Of the nine criteria,
the applicant is responsible for #1, 2, 3 (The ninth criteria is not
applicable in this case due to the site's location outside of a water
supply watershed area).
The size, sb~ape, topography and existing vegetation of the
property in relation to its suitability for agricultural or
forestal production as evaluated by the United States Department
of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service or the Virginia Depart-
ment of Forestry.
Blandemar Farm is 1,379.29 acres. Its overall length is 10,000
feet along a more or less north-south axis, and its width varies
from 8,000 feet to 4,500 feet, average width is about 6,000
feet.
The northern half of the property is topographically severe.
Ridges of 10 percent slopes or less are narrow .and not conduc-
tive to agricultural uses. The topography of the southern half
is much less severe. This area is characterized by rolling
hills and is suitable for agricultural use.
Approximately half of the site, 700 acres, is ~poded. Steep
slopes account for about 350 acres or 50 percent of the wooded
area limiting potential forestal use. The rema%ning 50 percent
does have potential forestal use.
2. The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or forestal
production as the same shall be shown on the most recent pub-
lished maps of the United States Department of Agriculture Soil
Conservation Service or other source deemed of ~quivalent
reliability by the Soil Conservation Service.
The soils of the property are suitable for bothi!agricultural and
forestal uses. The southern half of the proper~y is dominated
by soils best suited to hay and pasture land. Soils of the
northern half of the property haVe high potential for production
of trees.
3. The historic commercial agricultural or forestai uses of the
property since 1950, to the extent that is reasgnably available.
607 acres of Tax Map 88 Parcel 1, is in agricultural land use
taxation. The applicant has maintained a limited agricultural
use since purchasing the property 10 years ago. ! These farming
operations have included cattle, corn, hay and ~lfalfa. The
applicant has also contracted some limited tree ~cutting in the
northern area of the property. The remaining a~reage receives
preferential assessment for forestal use.
4. If located in an agricultural or forestal area, 'the probable
effect of the proposed development on the character of the area.
For the purposes of this section, a property sh~ll be de-~-ed to
be in an agricultural or forestal area xf fifty i(50) percent or
more of the land within one mile of the border ~f such property
has been in commercial agricultural or forestal ~use within five
Years of the date of the application for specia]~ use permit. In
making this determination, mountain ridges, major strenm-~ and
other physical barriers which detract from the ~hesiveness of
an area shall be considered.
June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
281
The majority of land within a one mile radius of this property
currently receives preferential assessment for either agricul-
tural or forestal usage. Of the 7,743 acres in this area, 4,518
acres or 58 percent are under land use taxation. Therefore,
staff's opinion is that this property is in a commercially
active agricultural or forestal area. Additionally, of the
4,518 acres in land use taxation, 2,011 acres exist in the
Hardware Agricultural/Forestal District. (It should be noted
that these figures do not take into consideration the entire
Blandemar Farm property, which has received preferential assess-
ment for either agricultural or forestal use since the land use
taxation program was initiated by the County in 1973).
In regard to the effect of development on the character of the area,
staff offers the following:
As discussed during the development of the Zoning Ordi-
nance, development in an agriculture area has direct and
indirect effects.
Among direct effects are: the vandalism of crops and
equipment and the destruction of livestock by children and
pets; the desire to regulate routine farm activities by
residents of the development ~i.e., spraying of pesticides
and herbicides; spreading of lime and manure; proximity of
livestock to residential areaS, commercial timbering
activities) and high land prices which make it difficult
for existing farms to locate in the area.
Indirect effects are generally related to the expectation
of continued development inthe area, resulting in the
impression that agricultural land is in transition.
Indirect effects include: reduced or marginal production;
divestment in equipment, livestock and other aspects of
farming requiring large and/o~ long-term investment and
idling of farmland. ~
Development in an agricultura~ and forestal area can change
the character of the area, not only in the immediate
vicinity but in remote areas.,i Increased residential
traffic on rural roads can re~ultl in hazardous conflicts
with slower moving tractors, Cruit trucks and logging
trucks. New or expanded utility corridors through active
farms may be required to serv~ new developments.
Where development occurs in identified agricultural and
forestal conservation areas, ~egulations should be flexible
to permit site locations thatlminimize interference with
agricultural and forestal oper~ations, that use marginally
productive lands, and, that cause a minimum loss of produc-
tive agricultural and foresta~ acreage.
Staff is not suggesting that the proposed Blandemar Farm Subdi-
vision would generate all of these negative effects. However,
the subdivision would increase residential development in an
area, which is viewed as inconsistent with the agricultural and
forestal objective.
One of the applicant's justifications for the proposed lot
clustering is to preserve both bona'~ fide farming tracts and the
agricultural character of the area. The applicant states, 'this
arrangement allows for an attractive and sensitive development
of a rural residential area. It will be in harmony with adja-
cent farming activities and will blend into the rural country-
side without disturbing the agricultural character of the area'
The relationship of the property in regard to developed
rural areas. For the purpose Of this section, a property
shall be deemed to be located in a developed rural area if
land',within one mile of the
50 percent or more of the ~
282
June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting
(Page 12
boundary of such property was in parcels of record of five
acres or less on the adoption date of this ordinance.
making this determination, mountain ridges, major streams
amd other physical barriers which detract from the cohe-
siveness of am area shall be considered.
This property is considered to be an undeveloped rural area
because approximately 1.5 percent or 116 acres of land
within a one mile radius of the subject property were in
parcels of five acres or less prior to the adoption of the
County Zoning Ordinance. The majority of developed land is
found along Route 708 in the Rush Estates Subdivision.
Other developed lots are sparsely located.. Of the 445
acres in the proposed Blandemar Residential Community, lots
five acres or less account for 142 acres, or approximately
32 percent of total developed acreage.
T~e relationship of the proposed developmemt to existing
and proposed population centers, services land employment
centers. A property within areas described below shall be
deemed in proximity to the area or use described:
Within one mile of the urban area boundary as described in
the Comprehensive Plan;
b. With one-half mile of a co,,-,,~mity boundary as described in
the Comprehensive Plan;
c. Within one-half mile of a Type I village or within one half
mile of the major crossroads of a Type II::village as
described in the Comprehensive Plan.
This property is located approximately 2.0 mil~s from the
Village of North Garden.
The probable effect of the proposed development on capital
improvements progrmm~ing in regard to increased provision of
services.
There is not an anticipated need for the increased provision of
services compared with by-right development. The response time
for the North Garden Volunteer Fire Department is approximately
seven to ten minutes.
The traffic generated from the proposed development would not,
in the opinion of the Virginia Department of Transportation:
a. Occasion the need for road improvements;
Cause a tolerable road to become a non-tolerable road;
Increase traffic on an existing non-tolerable road.
The Virginia Department of Transportation has c6mmented that
this section of Route 708 is currently tolerable. This is not a
request for more lots than 'by-right' development. Traffic from
the proposed development would be no greater thRn traffic from
'by-right' development. ~
Staff Comment: The analysis of the eight criteria i~dicate that this
request does not meet all the criteria requirements ~or the proposed
development in the RA (Rural Areas) zone. It does, however, meet the
intent of some design standards of the ComprehensiveiPlan and the
Rural Areas zoning goal. The Zoning Ordinance state~ in Section
10.1, Rural Areas Intent, that: ~
In regard to Agricultural Conservation, this dim%rict is
intended to conserve the county's active farms Sd best agricul-
tural and forestal lands by providing lot areas ~esigned to
insure the continued availability of such lands ~or preferential
June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
283
land use tax assessment in order to enhance the economy, and
maintain employment and lifestyle opportunities. In addition,
the continuation and establishment of agriculture and agricul-
turally-related uses will be encouraged.
It is intended that development be permitted on land which is of
marginal utility for agricultural purposes, provided that such
development be arranged out in a manner which is compatible with
the agricultural activity of the area. In addition, it is
intended that such development occur in locations and at scales
compatible to the physical characteristics of the land and to
the availability of public utilities and facilities to support
such development. Roadside strip development is to be discour-
aged through the various design requirements contained herein.
In regard to paragraph 1, the Zoning Ordinance provides for 21 acre
tracts in meeting the agricultural intent of the rural areas. In the
opinion of staff, large tracts (21 acres or greater) designed to
preserve agricultural and forestal land~ would better meet the land
use objectives of the rural areas.
It should also be noted that while a large percent of this property
retains soils of good to moderate quality, an attempt has been made
by the applicant to locate the proposed, lots where mostly marginal
soils exists.
Review of this special use permit will be in two parts: site design
criteria and policy considerations. The site design criteria are set
forth in the Comprehensive Plan and the iZoning Ordinance. The policy
considerations are appropriately addressed under the legislative
discretion of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
Site Design Criteria: Review of technical criteria will focus on
issues of water quality, protection of ~ritical slopes, effects of
development on an agricultural/forestal!!district, and the preserva-
tion of agricultural activity.
Water Quality: Several unnamed streams;jtraverse this property. This
property drains into the North Fork Hardware River Basin. The
Comprehensive Plan recommends various ggldelines which work toward
protecting stream integrity through maintenance of water quality,
water temperature norms, shoreline line~ and aquatic habitat and
immediate stream area.
It is anticipated that the proposed development will have some
adverse effects on the water quality of iadjacent streams and tribu-
taries. In light of the fact, the applicant proposes the following
analysis:
The development of this project wil'l occur in tributary streams
of the existing 35-acre Blandemar lake. This will provide added
protection to water quality downstream in excess of the rigorous
requirements of the State Erosion Control Permit. The expected
trap efficiency for the existing large lake is very high. A
removal rate of two-thirds to three-fourths of stream pollutants
is anticipated. Two additional la~e sites are proposed, further
adding to water quality.
Protection of Critical Slopes: This prqperty is characteristic of
moderately rolling hills to areas of critical slopes. The current
subdivision proposal will arrange lots on the moderately sloped
areas, leaving the critical slopes on Ragged Mountain mostly undis-
turbed. The previous~'by right' subdivision plat approved by the
Planning Commission on December 8, 1987,ii proposed a greater number of
lots that would have encroached upon lar!ge areas of critical slopes.
The 'by-right' subdivision would have additional impacts on critical
slopes due to the amount of grading required for road construction
and the length of road required to serve lots in high elevations. In
284
June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meetingl
(Page 141
addition, 'by-right' development will giVe the critically sloped
areas a developed appearance.
Effects on Agricultural/Forestal District: Approximately 2,011 acres
of land within a one mile radius of this proposal are committed to
the Hardware Agricultural/Forestal District. These lands exist
immediately to the southeast and northwest of the subject property.
In the opinion of staff, this is evidence of a truly bona fide
agricultural area. The negative impacts of the proposed residential
development on agricultural activity is likely to increase due
largely to the proposals proximity to an area were large acreages
have been committed to an agricultural/forestal district. This
development proposes substantially smaller lots than 'by-right'
development. While the smaller lots are purely of residential
nature, the 'by-right' development would propose lots intended for
agricultural and forestal related uses. The effectof this type of
proposal in the agricultural area is generally set forth in the
discussion of special use permit criteria #4.
In an effort to provide a buffer zone from the adjacent Hardware
Agricultural/Forestal District', the applicant proposes (200 foot)
conservation easements on lots 29, 30 and 31.
Preservation of On-Site Agricultural Activity: The applicant's
proposal will preserve a 315 acre tract and a 600 ac~e tract. Three
division rights will be allocated to the 600 acre tract because a
division right is required for each existing dwellin'g. The 315 acre
tract will retain four division rights as requestediby applicant.
In staff's opinion, the current proposal clearly preserves larger
tracts of land for agricultural and forestal use. Staff recognizes
these tracts as viable agricultural and forestal areas. The
Blandemar Farm Tract is considered the most viable agricultural land
with regard to soil quality and topography. ~.
While well suited for tree growth, the Rosenstiel T~mct has consider-
able topographic constraints which limits forestal p~oductlon.
Policy Consideration: By the clustering of this property's develop-
ment rights, the character of the area will be more Df a developed
appearance than 'by-right'. As previously noted, th~ negative
impacts of residential development can be quite subskantial in areas
of high agricultural activity. In staff's opinion, .~his development
is incompatible given the area's commitment to agricultural and
forestal production. ~
Further, the proposal is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan's
recommendation for residential developments in rural~locations.
Small developments within the rural areas are recommended not to
exceed 20 dwelling units. This proposal exceeds thr~e times the
number of dwelling units recommended for residential~developments in
rural locations. It should also be noted that this proposal would
create more lots of five acres or less than presentl~ exist within a
one-mile radius of this property. Given the proposed number of lots,
this development is more consistent with village scale development.
From the adoption of the Rural Areas district in December, 1980
through January, 1988, 23 special use permits have been filed. Of
those 23 petitions, seven did not request additional~lots but did
request lot size variations. It should be noted tha~ a request
similar to the current proposal existing within the Qne mile study
area (SP-85-7 Edgar Robb Subdivision - Colston) was ~pproved by the
Board of Supervisors on April 17, 1985. This request, which gained
unanimous Board approval was a petition to subdivide~144.5 acres into
twelve parcels ranging from six to sixteen acres. :~
If the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors ~hoose to approve
this request, it is important in terms of precedence ko make positive
findings that by virtue of the specific aspects of t~is property
location and the plan for development, that there ar~ identifiable,
June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
285
overriding public benefits to be gained which outweigh the fact that
this proposal does not meet all criteria requirements for proposed
development in the RA (Rural Areas) district.
Conclusion: The present request does not meet all the technical
criteria set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
In staff's opinion, a development of this scale will significantly
change the agricultural character of the area. It is foreseeable
that the approval of this development would encourage similar
requests on adjacent parcels, further making the area susceptible to
residential development. In the opinion of staff, approval of this
petition will only increase conflicts caused by the spatial proximity
of developed and agricultural uses.
In staff's opinion, the request for a more uniform lot size is
largely for marketing purposes only, and serves to fulfill proprie-
tary rather than public interests.
Staff recommends denial of this request.
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to
approve this petition, staff recommends the following conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
County Attorney approval of deed restriction documents prohibit-
ing further division of the Rosens~iel Tract;
Division rights attributed to the Blandemar Tract shall be
utilized for existing dwelling only; lot sizes shall not exceed
five acres; County Attorney approval of deed restrictions on
Blandemar Tract after use of division rights;
3. A subdivision plat submitted for approval shall be in general
accordance with the plat by Gloeckner & Osborne, Inc., titled
'Blandemar Farm and Residential Community', dated March 28,
1988, (revisions on Hatch 29 and Hi:fy 2)."
Hr. I-Iorne said the ?lanning Commission, 'at its meeting on Hay 17, 1988,
passed the petition to the Board with no re¢~maendation, due to a tied vote.
Hr. I-Iorne said he would like to expand upon the issue of precedence in
this request. In terms of precedence, he said, it is important that this
proposal serve the public interest. Hr. Itorne said there has been some
discussion that the precedent set here would ~:be restricted to lots of a
similar size, i.e., parcels of around 1400 a~res. In other words, he said,
this request may not set a precedent for smaller parcels, and there are very
few parcels the size of Blandemar in the Couqty. There are many farms of this
size, but they are usually made up of multip'~e parcels, he said.
Mr. Horne said the staff believes the precedent would not be restricted
to large parcels. If the decision to approv9 this development is made on a
site design issue, Mr. Horne said, the staff believes this decision will set a
precedent for developing tracts composed of ~ore than one parcel, as long as
the site design is an improvement over what ~ould be done by-right.
Mr. Bain asked if Mr. Horne was suggesting that three or four property
owners might enter into a joint venture, combining several tracts and the
rights upon those tracts, and bring a proposal to the Board similar to the one
before the Board today. Mr. Horne said "yes"~ if the Board approves this
request on a site design issue. He said it is sometimes difficult to design a
good site plan on the basis of by-right develOpment. If the developer is
allowed to change lot sizes, move development rights among parcels or to
different areas of the site, the developer can usually come up with a better
site plan. If the Board approves this request based on the site design, Mr.
Home said, he believes the decision will have long-range consequences.
Mr. Home said the staff was concerned, hot just about the effect of the
site design on the site itself, but about theieffect of the proposed
286
June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting
(Page 16
development upon the area. He said the staff is also concerned that approval
of this request may set a precedent for development in this area.
Mr. Home said the staff recommends that the request be denied. If the
Board approves the request, he said, the staff recommends that there be no
division of the Rosenstiel tract. He said the Planning Commission discussed
whether the four division rights reserved to the Rosenstiel tract could be
moved to the area that is to be developed.
If the Board approves the request, Mr. Lindstrom said, it is expected
that the Blandemar Farm and Rosenstiel tracts would be become part of the
adjoining agricultural/forestal district. But, he said, there is no condition
requiring that this be done. He asked how the staff would react to a condi-
tion that required the applicant to pursue the inclusion of the Blandemar Farm
and the Rosenstiel tracts in the adjoining agricultural/forestal district.
Then, he said, there would be something that would trigger the application.
Mr. Home said this is what the applicant proposed, He said he thought it
would be appropriate that the applicant would apply, by a particular date, to
enter these parcels into the agricultural/forestal district.
Mr. Lindstrom said he knows the applicant and staff~discussed deed
restrictions as a way of limiting the possibility of future development. He
said he could not vote to approve such a request, without seeing the deed
restrictions. He asked if the applicant discussed granting an easement over
these tracts to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. Mr. H6rne said they dis-
cussed such an easement, but the staff prefers deed restrictions, so that
whoever owns the land will be subject to the restrictions.
Mr. Lindstrom said deed restrictions will not hold unless they are
enforceable by several different parties. He said he is~concerned that such
restrictions may amount to just another zoning examption.~ If someone buys the
Blandemar Farm tract and pressures the Board five years f. rom now to allow him
or her to divide the property, this request would be little more than a
rezoning application, he said. Mr. Lindstrom said he kn0~s he should trust
anything any Board would do, but he does not. If the BoaMd must consider this
kind of density in a rural area, he said, he is more comfortable with dividing
the property into 21-acre lots. He said he is concerned that moving all the
parcels down into one spot would later open up the rest Of the parcel to
relatively high-density development, which would be precluded by the approval
of a by-right division. If development of the Blandemar Farm and Rosenstiel
tracts were restricted by both deed restrictions and conservation easements,
he said, then a decision as to what would happen on the property would be in
the hands of two parties, instead of just the Board. ~
Mr. Way opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant would like
to address the Board. ~
Mr. Thomas J. Michie, 3r., addressed the Board and s~id he was represent-
ing Ms. Blanka Rosenstiel, who would like to give the Board some background on
what she has done with her farm and what she hopes to do to preserve the
beauty of the farm.
Mrs. Rosenstiel addressed the Board and said she would like to talk a
little about herself and her farm so that the Board will ~nderstand why she
chooses to present the cluster plan for its consideration~ She said she moved
to the County in 1978 and purchased Stillwater Farm, which she called a jewel
in the rough. She said she spared no effort, using all of her time, imagina-
tion and whatever else was needed to polish this jewel and bring it to the
lovely condition it is in today. She said some of the work involved tearing
down old barns, restoring historic houses, building roads~ miles of fences and
a dam in order to create a 30-acre lake. That lake is now a filter for
groundwater and tributaries to the Hardware River, she sa~d. She said she has
carried out full-scale farming activities right up to this very day, raising
Angus cattle and thoroughbred horses, and growing corn, a~falfa and hay.
She said this is the first time she has approached t~e Board with a
proposal, although she was disappointed when the Board de~ied the zoning text
amendment that would have permitted Mr. Mel Zuckerman to ~ild a health resort
on her property last year. She said she was not one of t~se citizens who
June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
287
dashed to the County Office Building to register small lots before the Zoning
Ordinance took effect in December, 1980.
She said her 68 division rights were approved on December 8, 1987. She
said she was not pleased with the plan; she kept visualizing a patch-work
development, with no open space for farming. She said she wondered what a
home built on open pasture, without trees, would look like; how the lots would
be maintained; if 21 acres was too small for farming and too big for a home
site; and if, ten years from now, she would be happy with the way the develop-
ment looked.
She said many of her neighbors and one of the County's planning staff
encouraged her to consider a cluster plan to use her division rights and
preserve the open farm land and forest. Despite the fact that such a develop-
ment would cost her both time and money, she said, she engaged Mr. Mark
Osborne to develop a cluster plan which would: eliminate a lot of driveways
spilling out onto Route 708; preserve the historic aspects of the property;
preserve the open farm and forestal land; create a common area of about one
hundred acres, with two lakes that would enhance the quality of the local
water table; and, be sensitive to the Comprehensive Plan and the public good.
Mrs. Rosenstiel claimed the development'~would serve the public good in a
number of ways. She said engineers have determined that the two additional
lakes would enhance the water table for homes outside the development. She
said the public good would also be served bythe elimination of a dozen or
more driveways onto Route 708. She said the. one, well-maintained entrance
planned for the subdivision would be safer and more attractive. She said she
is pleased that Mr. Osborne was able to preserve so much open land while using
her 68 division rights. She said 1000 acres will be left in open space: 600
acres for farm land, 315 for forest land and ~over 90 acres for a permanent
green common area. There are only three other farms in the County which
consist of one 1400 acre parcel, she said, and preserving 1000 acres is a
unique approach and would set a worthwhile p=ecedent.
She said she is pleased that many of he~ neighbors have let her know they
approve of this cluster plan. She said she Knows the Board will see that she
has made every effort to consider all the environmental and historic aspects
of the area, as well as the Comprehensive Plan. She said she is sure the
Board will see to it that the proper wording Will be used to restrict any
further development other than her 68 division rights.
Mr. Mark Osborne addressed the Board an~ said he is the civil engineer
for Mrs. Rosenstiel's project. He showed th~; Board two plans for the proper-
ty: a development as it would be by-right and the cluster plan he and his
client propose for the area. According to the cluster plan, he said, most of
the units will be built in areas where the sdil is not as suitable for faming
as it is on the large tracts. He said he and Ms. Rosenstiel placed the
proposed development in an area where it would be hidden from the road by
ridges on the property. Travelers on the road would not see any of the lots
and therefore would not feel they were drivin~g through an area that is in
transition, he claimed. He said the by-right~ subdivision would create lots
and building sites on top of the hills, where~I any houses would be noticeable.
Mr. Osborne asked that the Board consider that the density of the devel-
oped area under the cluster plan would be about 7.2 acres per dwelling unit,
including the open space of 93 acres. Excluding the open space, he said, the
density would be about six acres per dwellingS, unit. He said this figure
exceeds the standards for density in a non-watershed area. If this develop-
ment were proposed for a watershed with a runoff control ordinance, he said,
these lots are so big that this project would be exempt from the permit
process.
Under the cluster plan, Mr. Osborne continued, there would be less than
five percent impervious cover. He said the impervious cover currently drains
to the existing lake. He said soil is washed into the lake at a rate of 155
tons per year; 23 tons per year leave the lake. He added that the two pro-
posed lakes would benefit the quality of the water, particularly since erosion
naturally occurs on hillsides. ~
288
June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting
(Page 18
As he and Mrs. Rosenstiel planned the development, he said, they referred.
often to the Comprehensive Plan and even drew from it goals and standards and
posted them on the wall so he could make sure the proposal met the require-
ments of the Plan. He said the Plan calls for the conservation of agricul-
tural and forestal lands; this proposal would preserve a working farm of 600
acres, the main house, the cultivated fields, the tenant house, the shed,
almost the entire road system, the paddocks, in short, the guts of a working
farm. Mr. Osborne said a development by-right would result in houses being
build all over the open fields. He said these open fields are spectacular and
must be preserved. Mr. Osborne said the Plan calls for the conservation of
scenic vistas; the cluster plan would hide the houses from travallers on Route
708. He said the Plan seeks to preserve water quality; the cluster plan would
provide two new lakes to filter the water. He said the cluster plan would
preserve critical slopes and the best agricultural soils and add 1000 acres to
the agricultural/forestal district.
Mr. Osborne said he tried to draw up a plan that would accommodate the
maximum number of lots of less than 21 acres. He said he considered dividing
the property into 20 lots of five acres each and 47 lots of 21 acres or more,
which would leave only 292 acres for Blandemar Farm, about half the size of
the farm that could be preserved with the cluster plan. ~He said he believed
such a subdivision would not achieve many of the objectives of the Comprehen-
sive Plan~ He said one of the main goals of this proposal is to use deed
restrictions to keep the farm running while by'right development occurs around
it, saving what may eventually be the only major agricultural center in this
part of the County.
Mr. Lindstrom said he must pose a rhetorical questiOn to Mrs. Rosenstiel.
He said Mrs. Rosenstiel, a lady of means and sophistication, has spent a great
deal of time describing what must be one of the most beadtiful farms in the
world. Mr. Lindstrom declared that it beggars the imagination to understand
why she would do this to the property. The County may s~y Mrs. Rosenstiel has
68 development rights, he continued, but the County is not commanding her to
divide the property. He said the proposal appalls him; ~t is as if someone
were to look at the Hope Diamond with only an eye for ho~ many Zales rings
could be carved from it. He said Mrs. Rosenstiel could divide the property
into only 30 lots if she wanted; she could do something ~0od with this pro-
perty. ~
Mr. Way asked that Mr. Michie proceed with his presentation. He intro-
duced Mr. Bill Stevens to talk about the history of the farm.
Mr. Stevens passed a summary of the history of Bland%mar Farm to the
Board. He said the topography of this property, with its high ridges, makes
the central area of it one of the most private and protected areas in the
County. This property was once four tracts, which were assembled by Mr.
Robert Patterson. For many years, until Mr. Patterson cqmpiled the separate
tracts into one parcel, there was no farm bigger than 400:hundred acres in
this area.
He said Mrs. Rosenstiel has spent much money in an ~ffort to maintain the
agricultural and historical integrity of the property. He said he thinks Mrs.
Rosenstiel is asking very little in return for the taxes .she pays to the
County, notwithstanding the fact that her property is in an agricultural-
preferred district. He said the County would benefit greatly from her pre-
serving what she has and keeping the growth centered in one spot on her
property, rather than allowing it to spread all over the ~lace.
Mr. Michie said some of Mrs. '
Rosenstiel s neighbors ~ere present to speak
in favor of her request. He said Mrs. A. E. Cutright, Jr.~, who lives on Route
708, and her parent Mr. A. E. Cutright, Sr., were here earlier to speak in
favor of this request, but Mr. Cutright fell ill, so they~left.
Mr. Rip Thompson said he was the central designer an~ marketing agent for
the Colston subdivision. He iterated that the public goo~ would be served by
the consolidation of road access into one entrance and th~ preservation of the
agricultural character of the area. The remaining acreage, would be large
enough for a practical farming operation; a 21-acre lot w~s only large enough
for a hobby-farm. In response to Mr. Lindstrom's statement, he said, he
thought dividing the property would allow more people to enjoy the property.
June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
289
He suggested that the County purchase it, if the Board wished to see the
property maintained as a 1400-acre farm.
Ms. Norma Battle addressed the Board and said she lived about one-eighth
of a mile from the driveway into Blandemar Farm. As a neighbor, she said, she
would prefer that the applicant be allowed the cluster development. She said
one road exiting onto Route 708 would be safer for walkers and joggers such as
herself, than 14 driveways. She said she is excited about the 600 acres being
left open and is satisfied that the Board will see to it that no additional
division rights are granted to anyone.
Mr. Michie said he has a letter from Kyger and Cabell Forestry Service
stating that the cluster plan is better for forestry than cutting the parcel
up into 21-acre lots. When considering a decision, he said, he hopes the
Board takes a long-range view of what is good for the County and moves away
from division by-right. He said the cluster plan preserves the farm land,
which the Comprehensive Plan sets forth as the most important priority of
development in rural areas.
He said he and his client are willing to work with the County Attorney on
restrictions, easements and buffers. He said Mrs. Rosenstiel does want to
bring three division rights down from the hillside areas and make three lower
lots. If the Board has a problem with the fact that some of the lots are less
than five acres, he said, his client can juggle them to make each lot five
acres. Of course, he said, if each lot is five acres, then there will be less
open space.
Mr. Michie said the staff can say only that this proposal does not fit
the goals of the Comprehensive Plan because the development would have more
than 20 units in a cluster. He asked if it would make the Board or staff any
happier if the ownership of the property wereidivided into four corporations,
which would mean the property could then be divided into four clusters.
Several of those clusters would be close to the highway and the historic farm
would be destroyed, he said, but such a diviskon would square with the Compre-
hensive Plan.
Mr. Michie said the staff was also concerned that approval of this
request might set a bad precedent. He said he does not agreewith this
argument and offered an example to illustrate his belief to the contrary. If
a developer put together five tracts of roughly the same size to come up with
a piece of property the size of Blandemar FarM, that developer would have 88
subdivision rights, he said, while Ms. Rosens(iel has only 68 such rights. If
this hypothetical developer came to the Boardland said he wanted a cluster
development with 88 lots and the rest in farmSand, he said, the Board could
tell him that if he wants to treat this propeuty as one parcel, he will get
only the development rights for one parcel, o~ 68 division rights. Therefore,
Mr. Michie averred, the precedent set by appr,ving this request could benefit
the County and reduce the number of division ~ights in rural ~reas.
Mr. Michie said it has been argued that clustering benefits the appli-
cant, rather than the public. He said he doe~ not think this is so bad. He
said the Board feels strongly that growth should be channeled away from the
South Fork Rivanna Reservoir, which this proposal would do. Is it so bad, he
asked, to allow an attractive subdivision, clqse to Route 29 South and border-
ing on a road rated tolerable? He said the amount of land cut up for subdivi-
sion will be the amount of land developers think the market will absorb.
People coming to the County have to live somewhere, he declared. He said the
Board should approve this request and channel~the influx to areas such as this
that can handle the growth. Mr. Michie concluded that this proposal serves
the public interest in two important ways: i~ would preserve a 600-acre farm
and attract the growth to an area where it belongs.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Michie if his cli~ent were willing to consider
granting an easement to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. Mr. Michie said
they discussed having an easement along the highway. Mr. Lindstrom asked if
an easement had been considered for the large ~racts set aside for agricultur-
al and forestal use. Mr. Michie asked what kind of easement Mr. Lindstrom
meant. Mr. Lindstrom said "an agricultural easement". Mr. Michie said "yes".
Mr. Way asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition to the application.
290
June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting
(Page 201
Mr. Dave Bass addressed the Board and said the applicant may be request-
ing a special use permit, but the request might as well be an application for
rezoning. He said the proposed development would not be like the County Fair,
something the Board can approve for a year and, if it should prove unaccept-
able, reclaim the land for agricultural use the following year. Once lots are
sold and homes are built, he said, there is no way the Board can rescind this
special use permit. If the Board approves this request, he said, it is
rezoning a portion of Blandemar Farm to a density the Comprehensive Plan
assigns to Villages, yet the nearest Village is two miles away. Mr. Bass said
the proposed subdivision would be three times greater than what the Plan
suggests as a guideline for rural areas, and would be the largest subdivision
in the rural areas of the County, and it would be surrounded by an agricultur-
al/forestal district.
Mr. Bass said the proffer promising that the 600-acre Blandemar Farm
tract and the 300-acre Rosenstiel tract would be added tO the Hardware River
Agricultural/Forestal District is a hollow proffer. He said the applicant'is
giving up nothing, since the rights would already be stripped from the 900
acres. He added that this proffer mocks the intent of agricultural/forestal
districts, which are established by people who Wish to give up their develop-
ment rights. ~
Mr. Bass said this development was not proposed to preserve the environ-
ment or the historical farm, otherwise the farm would not have been proposed
for a health resort a year ago. He said this plan is proposed because it
makes business sense for a development. He said five acre lots are as market-
able, if not more so, than lots of 21 acres. What this proposal leaves, he
said, is a farm of 600 acres for the applicant, as well as 300 acres of forest
land, which he estimates is somewhere between one and two million dollars
worth of property the applicant can hold on to because she opted for a cluster
development. If the Board approves this proposal, he thinks, other such
proposals will come before the Board. ~
To return to the by-right development of this proper~y, Mr. Bass said,
just because there are 68 lots allowed does not mean ther~ will ever be 68
houses. Some of these lots will fall on steep slopes, some in the flood
plain, some along the highway, and some will be under the~ spillway of Ms.
Rosenstiel's dam which, he said, would not be an ideal home for anybody. He
agreed that theoretically there may be 68 division rightS~ but some of the
lots could be combined through marketing into farms. He i~omputed that there
would be about 14 mountain lots, eightroad frOntage lots~and one spillway
lot, which comes to 25 marginal lots in a by-right subdivision on this prop-
erty. Deducting these marginal lots would leave 43 buildable, lots, he said.
If the applicant were to present a plan of by-right subdivision, with 43 homes
and the deed restrictions mentioned tonight, he suggested~ the Board might be
able to approve such a plan on the basis of its protectio~ of the environment.
He added that approving such a plan would not set a precedent that would later
damage the rural areas.
If the Board denies the applicant!s proposal tonighti Mr. Bass said, he
believes the Board will see a second proposal in a month ~r two with fewer
lots.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Bass based his argument oh the assumption that
there are not 68 marketable lots on this property unless ~he lots are clus-
tered as proposed. Mr. Bass agreed.
Mr. Nakasian said he is not a neighbor of Mrs. Rosenstiel, but he does
own and farm some land. He said he appreciates the comments made that parts
of the County should be kept rural and agricultural, but he would like to know
how landowners are supposed to pay for this amenity. He said the servants of
the citizens should show some restraint when expressing theirp opinions about
what landowners do with their land. Perhaps Mrs. Rosenst~el wished to divide
her property in order to share her land, he declared. He!said he thinks the
cluster plan is a sensible way to use the property. As lq~g as the applicant
is within her legal limits, which he thinks she is, the Bdard should realize
that this kind of quality development is what the citizens want, instead of
the kind of development that has occurred along U. S. Rou~e 29 North. He
June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
291
asked that the Board discount Mr. Bass's argument because it was facetious and
insincere.
Mr. Lindstrom said the Board members retain their first amendment rights.
Mr. David Bentiline addressed the Board and commended the staff for
trying to adhere to the Comprehensive Plan. He said he thinks a development
of 21-acre lots would have a much more gradual impact on the community,
because large lots sell slowly. He said he subdivided his own land into
larger lots and it did take longer to sell the properties, but he thinks it
resulted in a more attractive subdivision. If Mr. Osborne and Mrs. Rosenstiel
were so compelled by the idea of open space, he asked, why did they submit the
original plat for 21 acre lots?
Mr. Lewis Johnson addressed the Board and said he owned Moreland Farm,
which adjoins Blandemar Farm. When he was growing up at Moreland, he said, he
was related to all his neighbors and was able to roam the surrounding proper-
ties as if he owned them. Obviously, he said, he wished that these properties
might never be developed. He said he is realistic enough to realize that some
development is bound to occur. He said he feels lucky that Mr. Bass bought
the property he did, because he has done nothing to change the property. Mr.
Johnson said he still feels like he cam roam'over the property, even though
Mr. Bass owns it now.
He said he thinks Mrs. Rosenstiel has the right to do what she wants with
her property, to an extent. He said he must see something good for the County
come out of this request and, so far, he sees no such thing. He asked that
the Board not allow cluster development to be more profitable than by-right
development, because he has other neighbors Who are just waiting for that kind
of decision.
Ms. Tamara Vance, of the Piedmont EnvirQnmental Council, addressed the
Board. Ordinarily, she said, clustering the~Jhouses on small lots would be
desirable, because it would preserve the sloped, wooded areas and productive
agricultural land. According to the Comprehensive Plan, she said, this
proposal calls for a development on the scal~ of what is called a conventional
development, with a number of units more appropriate to a village or an urban
area.
Furthermore, she said, the development would be surrounded on three sides
by an agricultural/forestal district. She said State law asks that local
governments consider agricultural/forestal districts when making land use
decisions. She said she knows of only one precedent for the approval of a
special permit for property adjacent to an agricultural/forestal district,
when a landowner was granted his request to divide one or two additional lots
on his property next to the Eastham Agricultural/Forestal District. This
applicant is proposing a rearrangement of existing lots rather than adding
lots, she said, but she thinks what the Board decides may influence future
decisions on land next to such districts.
She said she thinks the applicant's request for a special permit hinges
upon the cost of road development and the marketability of the lots. If the
Board denies this special permit, she said, t~e applicant will come back with
a proposal that is more in keeping with the Ci6mprehensive Plan's recommenda-
tions for rural areas.
If the Board decides to require deed restrictions and conservation
easements for approval, she said, she thinks ~he Board should take the time to
examine the restrictions and easements before~granting the request. She
recommended that the Board defer action on this request tonight. She warned
that courts can sometimes undo deed restrictions, which must be carefully
worded to insure the long-term retention of the land. Easements held by the
Virginia Outdoors Foundation are very difficult to extinguish, she said. The
provisions for extinguishing such an easement!include proving that the land no
longer serves a public purpose and providing !and to replace what was once
held in the easement. On the other hand, she~said, easements to the State can
be designed in such a way that property as small as 50 acres can be allowed
under arrangements made between the State and llthe landowner. She said the
Board will want to be specific about the language of the easement, to guard
against granting the applicant even more potential for development.
292
June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meetingl
(Page 221
Ms. Vance said the number of units resulting from this subdivision would
be even greater if this were a matter of recombining parcels. At one time,
she said, Mrs. Rosenstiel thought she had nine parcels, which could have given
her over 100 lots. She asked that the Board consider the number of units
allowed in this case when it meets to discuss revisions to the Comprehensive
Plan and recommended that the Board raise the lot size of 21 acres which is
used to determine the number of lots allowed.
Mr. Way asked if anyone else wished to speak against this request. Since
no one else wished to speak in opposition, Mr. Way closed the public hearing
and placed the matter before the Board.
(Note: The Board recessed at 11:01 P.M. and reconvened at 11:08 P.M.)
Mr. Bowie said the public hearing reminded him of a~song that says "there
are no good guys, there are no bad guys, there's just you and me and we just
disagree". He said he believes that everyone who spoke was sincere and just
because someone disagrees with someone else does not mean either party is
wrong. He said his hat is off to people who bought their farms with the
avowed purpose of losing money, but he does not see anything wrong with making
money.
Mr. Bain said he thinks the Board is faced with a critical decision that
may determine the future, not only of the rural areas, but the urban and
growth areas as well. He said members of the Board must ask themselves if
they are willing to toss aside the concept of the rural areas that was consid-
ered so carefully years ago, when the Planning Commission and the Board spent
years putting together the present Zoning Ordinance.
He said he is concerned that approving this request may eventually force
the Board to amend its Zoning Ordinance and do away with the required lot size
of 21 acres in the rural areas. He said he appreciates ~he time and effort
the applicant has spent in presenting a cluster proposal and he thinks her
proposal has many good features. However, he said, he thinks the legislative
act the applicant is asking the Board to pass tonight will not serve the rural
areas as well as do the present terms of the Zoning OrdiHance. He said he
cannot support this request.
Mr. Bain said he sees nothing wrong with someone trySng to make a pro-
posed development both profitable and compatible with the?!Comprehensive Plan.
He just does not think this proposal is in keeping with t~e long-range goals
of the Comprehensive Plan, which has been in effect for e~ght or nine years.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the cluster approach do~s offer a better
approach to rural development, in the context the Board i~ forced to work
within in this County. He said he cannot guess whether M~. Rosenstiel can
sell 68 lots according to her first plan, the by-right dev. elopment. He said
he suspects she could sell the large lots, just not as qu%ckly.
He said he is concerned about the long-term effects df this decision. He
thinks this request and its outcome are being very closel~ watched by some
people in the room tonight and the development community. ~ There can be doubt,
he said, that the applicant has chosen an approach to development that makes
it easier to sell the lots. If the Board approves this approach, he said, the
development of other farms will be more likely. If the cdunty decides,
through a deliberative process, that this is what it wants to do, he is
willing to work with this decision. He said he would rath~er have such an
important decision be the outcome of the Comprehensive Plan process and the
result of an analysis of the County's land use policies. There are too many
issues, he said, to make a decision based on one case.
He said it has been difficult for him to reach a deci~sion on this re-
quest. He said he believes clustering isa better approach, if the County
must have rural development. He said he knows the Planning Commission and the
staff are considering clustering as an alternative in the revisions to the
Comprehensive Plan. But, he said, he does not want to institute clustering by
granting one application, especially when the benefits to The County and the
density that could be achieved are questionable. ~
June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
293
Mr. Way said for him the central question is whether a piece of property
should be developed in the best possible way or according to the requirements
of the Zoning Ordinance, which may not result in the best use of the land. He
said it is important to decide whether the proposal is a good or bad plan. He
said the property is going to be developed and this plan is better than what
the applicant may do with her property if the Board denies this request. For
this reason, he said, he will support the application, but he wants to make
sure the deed restrictions are proper and he does not think the Board can make
certain of this tonight. He said he would also like time to consider the
possibility of easements.
Mr. Bowie said he is not sure that all 68 lots would sell under the
by-right plan of development. He said the lots along and near the road would
sell, which includes the lots on the best part of the farm. He said the
County would lose the most beautiful and useful part of the property under a
by-right development.
Mr. Lindstrom said the staff's comments_on precedence and the possibility
of developments waiting in the wings reinforce his belief that, if the County
chooses the clustering approach, it do so after deliberation, rather than as a
reaction to this application.
Mr. Perkins said another question is whether the applicant will really go
through with the by-right subdivision. If the applicant plans to proceed with
a subdivision of 21 acre parcels, he thinks Che Board should approve the
special use permit. He said this County has given property ownersdevelopment
rights and this proposal seems to him to be a case of just rearranging these
development rights. He said he would like to know how many concessions the
applicant is willing to make, particularly if she was willing to go beyond the
recommended conditions for approval and place a permanent conservation ease-
ment on the remaining 900 acres.
Mrs. Cooke said she thinks it is clear ~hat the applicant is determined
to develop the property in some way. She sa~d the cluster plan gives the
County an opportunity to control the future Of this property. There is a
buyer in this community, she said, for all s~rts of real estate, a buyer who
could buy this property and remove it comple~ely from the control of the
County. That buyer shall remain nameless at ithis point, she said.
As much as she would like to see the rural areas remain rural, she said,
she feels the cluster plan before the Board is far more desirable that what
could happen to this property under another plan or owner. She said she
thinks she will support the request.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to defer action on this special use permit
to July 6, 1988, until deed restrictions and easements could be drafted for
the land proposed to remain for agricultural and forestal use.
Mr. Michie said he would be happy to work with Mr. St. John on this. Mr.
St. John asked who the easements would run tot Mr. Lindstrom said he would
like the Virginia Outdoors Foundation to have a look at the draft. Mr. Michie
said this would take more time.
Mr. Bowie said he would rather the future of the County be left to a
future Board, rather than future State officials. He said he does not oppose
letting the Virginia Outdoors Foundation read!the draft, but he would also
like to see some deed restrictions that would~be under the control of a future
Board.
If the Virginia Outdoors Foundation decides it no longer needs the
property 20 years from now, Mr. Lindstrom sai4, the County can insist that the
use of the property remain the same.
Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. There w~s no further discussion. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the folldwing recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
294
June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting
(Page 24
Mrs. Rosenstiel asked if she could respond to Mr. Lindstrom's comments.
She said she has heard that if she does not take advantage of the current
zoning regulations, the County will soon adopt a minimum lot size of 40 acres
in the rural areas. She said property owners all around her are subdividing
their land and houses are being built very close to her property. She said
she just wants to keep the property rights she has.
When someone appears before the Board and speaks as eloquently on preser-
vation as Mrs. Rosenstiel has, Mr Lindstrom said, he can only respond by
saying she does not have to develop her land to its maximum and take advantage
of the minimum standards set by the County for development in rural areas. If
Mrs. Rosenstiel is truly concerned about preservation, he said, she can make
money from the farm on a lot less lots than 68.
Agenda Item No. 7. Discussion: Lot Regulations proposed under
ZTA-87-03. Due to the lateness of the hour (11:42 P.M.), Mr. Way said this
item would be included on the agenda of June 8, 1988.
Agenda Item No. 8. Mill Creek Subdivision: Approval of Gas Line
Easement.
Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum from Mr. John T. P. Horne,
dated May 25, 1988:
"Enclosed you will find a deed of easement between the County of
Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville granting the City easements
for gas lines to be installed in the Mill Creek Subdivision. These
gas lines are to provide service to the residential dwellings in this
area and this deed is a standard format that is exe6uted to provide
for this service. I would like to request that the'~hairman of the
Board of Supervisors be authorized to sign the deed~;~
It appears that there may be a more efficient way to process these
routine easement requests than requesting Board of SUpervisors
approval in each individual case. Based on our conversations, I
would like to suggest that the staff or the Chairman' be authorized to
execute the easements as a routine matter without direct Board of
Supervisors approval where the service is being provided within the
designated growth area. I believe this method should take care of a
majority of the cases. Service outside the growth area can be
handled on an individual basis by the Board of Supervisors. This
method should save unnecessary use of Board 'of Supervisors' time."
Mr. Bain said he would rather the Board authorize the staff to execute
easements routinely only in the growth areas that are also a part of the urban
areas of the County.
Mr. St. John asked if the roadways that would contain the easement for
the gas line were ever going to be included in the State system of secondary
roadways. Mr. Home said "yes". Mr. St. John said the deed of easement
should include a provision that states that if the roads are ever widened, the
gas lines will be moved at the City's expense. Otherwise, he said, the State
will not take these roads into the system once the easement has been granted.
Mr. Home said Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer for the Virginia
Department of Transportation had approved, in an earlier deed of easement, the
same language staff used in this deed of easement.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. iBain, to authorize
the chairman to sign the easement set out below, and to allow staff to sign
such easements for the urban area only in the future. There was no further
discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom. Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
295
"THIS DEED, made this day of , 1988, by and
between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Grantor, hereinafter
"County", and THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, a municipal
corporation, Grantee, hereinafter "City", whose address is P. O.
Box 911, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902.
WITNESSETH:
That for and in consideration of the sum of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00),
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor hereby GRANTS and
CONVEYS with GENERAL WARRANTY and ENGLISH COVENANTS OF TITLE unto the
City, a perpetual, nonexclusive easement and right-of-way five (5)
feet in width to construct, replace, maintain and repair a four (4)
inch natural gas line within the roadway known as "Gray Stone Court",
and a two (2) inch natural gas line within the roadway known as
Boulder Spring Court, as shown on plats made by the Gas Division of
the Public Works Department of the City of Charlottesville dated
April 5, 1988, which plats are attached hereto and made a part of
this deed; to construct slopes, cuts, fills and ditches in connection
therewith, and convey across said property natural gas through said
natural gas lines. Said easement and right-of-way are shown on such
plat with a broken line as the center line of the easement.
The conveyance of this easement and right-of-way includes the
perpetual right of ingress and egress for the above-mentioned
purpose.
Said easement and right-of-way cross a portion of the property
dedicated to the County of Albemarle bylsubdivision plat dated
July 23, 1987 and revised August 7, 1987, of record in the Clerk's
Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarl9 County in Deed Book 955,
page 13. Reference is hereby made to the aforesaid plat for a more
complete description of the property over which this easement and
right-of-way cross.
As evidenced by its acceptance and ~recordation of this deed, the
City covenants that it will perform the ~installation of the natural
gas lines in a proper and careful manne~. Disturbed portions of
Grantor's property will be restored to ~ condition comparable to that
which existed prior to such installation, except that no flowers,
shrubs or trees within the easement wilt~ be replanted, or replaced if
destroyed.
In consideration of the granting o£~ this easement, the City
covenants that at such time as Graystone Court and/or Boulder Spring
Court are to be taken into the State road system, the City will, at
the request of the County or the Virginia Department of Transporta-
tion, quitclaim all of its rights in this easement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County of Albemarle has caused this
instrument to be executed on its behalf ~by Peter T. Way, Chairman of
the Board of Supervisors for Albemarle County, Virginia.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Charlottesville has caused this
instrument to be executed on its behalf ~by Francis L. Buck, Mayor of
the City of Charlottesville, Virginia.
Agenda Item No. 9a. Appointments: Lewis. Mountain Neighborhood Study
Committee. Mr. Lindstrom requested that this matter be deferred for another
week.
Agenda Item No. 9b. Other Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to appoint Mrs.
Cooke to an Ad-Hoc Committee for the Italian Student Exchange Program. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the folldwing recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
296
NAYS: None.
June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meetingl
(Page 261
Mr. Bowie said that he and Mr. Bain had conducted interviews for the
vacancy on the JABA Board and would like to recommend the appointment of Dr.
Daniel Phillip Harrington, a pharmacist at the University. Dr. Harrington has
a specialty in geriatric medicine and is also a psychiatrist.
Mr. Bowie then offered motion to appoint Dr. Harrington as a member of
the Jefferson Area Board for Aging Board of Directors, for a term which will
expire on March 31, 1990. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bain. There was no
further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Way nominated Mr. S. Keith Rittenhouse, an engineer who lives in
Marshall Manor to serve as the Scottsville District representative on the
Albemarle County Planning Commission.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bain, to appoint Mr.
Rittenhouse to replace Mr. Harry Wilkerson on the Planning Commission, with a
term which will expire on December 31, 1991. There was no fUrther discussion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 10. Approval of Minutes: March 19 (Night), 1986, and
November 11, 1987.
Mr. Bain had read pages 1 to 11 of November 11, 1987, and found them to
be "in good shape."
Mr. Bowie had read pages 15 to the end of March 19, 1986, and found only
a couple of typographical errors.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr.~Bain, to approve
those minutes read. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None. ~
ABSTAINING: Mr. Perkins. '~
Agenda Item No. 11. Other Matters Not Listed on thei!Agenda from the
Public and Board.
Mr. Agnor said he has three announcements to make. Firstly, the Gover-
nor's Office wants nominations by Monday, June 6, 1988, for members of the
Rivanna Scenic River Advisory Committee. Secondly, the Sheriff's Departments
of Madison and Greene Counties and the County's Police. DePartment will demon-
strate the accomplishments of three newly trained K-9 dogs, on the baseball
field at the end of the parking lot of the County Office Building, at 1:00
P.M., 'June 2, 1988. These dogs were all trained by Mr. Randy Davis, a County
Pelice Officer. Thirdly, the annual employees' will be h~ld at Pen Park,
beginning at 1:00 P.M., June 4, 1988.
Agenda Item No. 12. Adjournment. With no further b~siness to come
before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:56 P.M.