1987-07-08July 8, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on July 8, 1987 at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room #7, County
Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs.
J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom (9:04 A.M.) and Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Gerald E. Fisher.
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
Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
9:05 A.M. by the Vice-Chairman, Mr. Peter 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 Mr. Lindstrom,
seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve 4.1 on the Consent Agenda and to accept the
remaining items as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher.
Item No. 4.1. Revised resolution requesting acceptance of roads in
Earlysville Forest Subdivision into Secondary System of Highways to add
reference to drainage easements, approved as follows:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of
Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident
Highway Department, the following roads in Sections 4 through 8 in
Earlysville Forest Subdivision:
Windy Cove
Beginning at station 0+11, a point ~ommon with the edge of
pavement of Earlysville Forest Drive and the centerline of Windy
Cove, thence in a northerly direction 614.42 feet to station
6+25.42, the end of the cul-de-sac.
Pine Grove
Beginning at station 0+11, a point common with the edge of
pavement of Earlysville Forest-Drive and the centerline of Pine
Grove, thence in a northeasterly direction 775.82 feet to
station 7+86.82, the end of the cul-de-sac.
Earlysville Forest Drive
Beginning at station 10+10.5, point common with the centerline
of Earlysville Forest Drive and the-edge of pavement of State
Route 743, thence in a northeasterly direction 6,983.49 feet to
station 79+93.99, the end of this dedication.
Fox Ridse Drive
Beginning at station 0+11, a point common with the edge of
pavement of Earlysville Forest Drive and the centerline of Fox
Ridge Road, thence in a southeasterly direction 442.26 feet to
station 4+53.26 and continuing in a northeasterly direction
1870.34 feet to station 23+23.60, the end of the cul-de-sac.
Rowan Court
Beginning at station 0+11, a point common with the edge of
pavement of Earlysville Forest Drive and the centerline of
22
July 8, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 2)
Rowan Court, thence in a northwesterly direction 367.77 feet
to station 3+78.77, the end of the cul-de-sac.
Paddock Circle
Beginning at station 0+11, a point common with the edge of
pavement of Earlysville Forest Drive and the centerline of
Paddock Circle, thence in a northeasterly direction 309 feet
to station 3+20, the end of the cul-de-sac.
Trillium Road
Beginning at station 0+11, a point common with the edge of
pavement of Earlysville Forest Drive and the cehterline of
Trillium Road, thence in a southeasterly direction 249 feet to
station 2+60 and continuing in a northeasterly direction
442.07 more feet to station 7+02.07, the end of~the cul-de-sac.
Hunters RidKe Road West
Beginning at station 0+11, a point common with the edge of
pavement of Earlysville Forest Drive and the centerline of
Hunters Ridge Road West, thence in a northwesterly direction
334 feet to station 3+45, the end of the cul-de'sac.
Hunters Ridge Road East
Beginning at station 0+ll, a point common with the edge of
pavement of Earlysville Forest Drive and the centerline of
Hunters Ridge Road East, thence in a southeasterly direction
1954.52 feet to station 19+65.52, the end of the cul-de-sac.
Saddle Court
Beginning at station 0+11, a point common with the edge of
pavement of Earlysville Forest Drive and the centerline of
Saddle Court, thence in a northeasterly direction 294 feet to
station 3+05, the end of the cul-de-sac.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 40 foot unobstructed
right-of-way and drainage easements along Windy Cove, Pine Grove and
Paddock Circle, and is hereby guaranteed a variable right-of-way and
drainage easement along Earlysville Forest Drive and is hereby
guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right-of-way and drainage easements
along these remaining additions (all roads being built in accordance
with the approved plans), as recorded by plats in Office of the Clerk
of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 717, page 036,
Deed Book 721, page 444, Deed Book 738, pages 269 and 270, Deed Book
748, pages 236, 237 and 417, Deed Book 755, page 710, Deed Book 756,
page 417, Deed Book 764, page 557, Deed Book 779, page 587, Deed Book
792, page 225, Deed Book 796, pages 392 and 393, Deed Book 849, page
299, Deed Book 911, pages 300, 615 and 620, Deed Book~912, page 253,
Deed Book 918, pages 204 and 255, and Deed Book 937, pages 83 and 88.
Item No. 4.2.
June 23, 1987, re:
follows:
Letter from Representative D. French Slaughter, Jr., dated
Community Development Block Grant Program, received as
"Thank you for your letter with regard to reauthorization of the
Community Development Block Grant program.
As you may know, theHouse recently passed a budget which includes a
provision authorizing the CDBG program at $3 billion, which is equal
to the level of FY87 appropriations.
It is difficult to say at this point how the appropriations process
will affect this budget authority.
I appreciate having the benefit of your views on this matter, and I
will certainly keep them in mind when the House considers pertinent
legislation.
Please let me hear from you at any time."
July 8, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 3)
Item No. 4.3. Letter from Senator Paul Trible dated June 26, 1987, re:
Community Development Block Grant Program, received as follows:
"Thank you for sending me a copy of the resolution adopted by the
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County. I was pleased to receive
your comments on CDBG funding.
I recognize the financial strain placed'on local governments by
federal budget cuts. CDBG's are a worthwhile program, and I would
prefer to see funding preserved at the $3 billion level.
In part because of a less than desirable funding level for CDBG's, as
well as a large proposed increase in tax revenues over the next four
years, I voted against the Senate budget plan. However, you will be
pleased to know that the full Congress bas apprOved a budget which
preserves the current funding level for FY88.
Although unspecified spending reductions must still be made, the
conferees recommendations are a welcome sign. You can be sure I will
continue to support adequate funding fo~ CDBG's in the days ahead.
I appreciate having the benefit of your thinking and I will keep your
concerns in-mind as the Senate debates budget matters."
Item No. 4.4. Memorandum from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., dated July 2, 1987,
re: Non-approval of Transportation Marketing~Grant Application by the Depart-
ment of Transportation, received as follows:
"You were recently requested, and approved, a $400 appropriation for
the County share of a public/private Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation (VDOT) grant program to improve public awareness of transport-
ation choices in the community. This is to advise you the grant was
not approved by VDOT."
Item No. 4.5. First Quarter 1987 Building Report, from the Department of
Planning and Community Development, received~and on file in the Clerk's
office.
Item No. 4.6. Letter dated July 1, 1987, from Governor Gerald L.
Baliles, stating that the County has been awarded a Virginia Community Devel-
opment Block Grant in the amount of $700,000, received as follows:
"I am pleased to announce that the Commonwealth will offer the County
of Albemarle a Virginia Community Development Block Grant in the
amount of $700,000 for your project. The Commonwealth looks forward
to assisting the County of Albemarle in meeting the community devel-
opment needs reflected in this project.
Based on your application, this project, rated high enough for the
Department of Housing and Community Development to begin grant
negotiations. When the negotiations are complete and the Depart-
ment's review confirms the contents of your application, a grant
contract will be prepared. The Department will be in contact with
you or your designee shortly to begin finalizing this grant offer.
Again, I am pleased that the Commonwealth can be of help to you in
meeting your community development needs."
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: June 12, 1985; December 3, 1986
(Afternoon); March 17 and June 3, 1987 (Night).
Mrs. Cooke said she had read the minutes of June 3, 1987, pages 9, Item
No. 9, to the end, and found them in order.
July 8, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 4)
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve
the minutes of June 3, 1987, pages 9 to the end. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters: Discussion= Rio Road Widening
Project. Memorandum from Mr. John T. P. Horne, dated June 29, 1987, follows:
"Since the last Board meeting at which the proposed improvements to
Rio Road were discussed, staff of this Department has met with staff
of the City of Charlottesville to discuss possible alternatives to
the proposal which has been endorsed by the Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors. To refresh the Board's memory, the project as
included in the current Six Year Secondary Budget is for the con-
struction of five full lanes from Rt. 29N to the railroad bridge near
the VOTEC School. This would include two travel lanes in each
direction with a full continuous center-left hand turn lane.
Prior to a discussion of the specific merits of any alternative
project it would appear necessary to briefly analyze the perceived
problems with the current project. The City's concerns, as expressed
in the attached memorandum are:
1. Additional through traffic in the Greenbrier neighborhood.
me
Additional traffic on the southern portion of the existing Rio
Road.
The current traffic volumes on Rio Road range from 19,791 vehicles
per day between Rt. 29 and Old Brook Road to 14,540 vehicles per day
at Rt. 650 (Gasoline Alley). These traffic volumes make Rio Road the
third highest volume road in the secondary system for the entire
county. Current zoning in this area allows for signSficant popula-
tion growth. Considerable amounts of new housing are currently under
construction and more is being actively planned at this time. It
would appear, therefore, that traffic volumes will increase in the
near future from uses along Rio Road, independent of'any additional
through traffic.
Staff has met with staff from the City of CharlottesVille in order to
discuss various options and to more fully understand the concerns of
the City. The staff does understand the fact that there are concerns
being expressed, but cannot accept the basic premise that the im-
provements to Rio Road will significantly increase traffic either
through Greenbrier or on the lower section of Rio Road. The staff,
therefore, recommends that the Board proceed with the project as
currently approved. The levels of service on Rio Road will continue
to deteriorate further without the approved road improvements.
If the Board of Supervisors wishes to limit the current project, a
description of the City's proposal is contained in the attached
material (on file). It would appear that the proposal is to utilize
the two current lanes on Rio Road as the southbound lanes with one
lane operating as a continuous left-hand turn lane. ~Northbound there
would be the construction of one new lane separated from the south-
bound lanes by a wide median. Ultimately, the median would be
removed and two lanes added to create a five lane structure as
currently proposed. The major constriction of traffic flows would,
therefore, be in a northbound direction. It is the staff's opinion
that the roadway would not function properly in a northbound direc-
tion as proposed by the City. It would be necessary to construct
turnlanes northbound for right hand turns at the commercial area near
Greenbrier and at Huntington Road. It would also be necessary to
construct a left-hand turn lane at Greenbrier Drive. It would appear
that the right hand turn lanes northbound would require additional
right-of-way which may not be necessary for utilization later when
July 8, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 5)
the additional lanes in the center of the roadway are constructed.
The approved project does not require right-of-way acquisition.
Therefore, for traffic to flow adequately, northbound additional
lanes will be needed at some locations and the "one lane" areas will
be limited. Weaving of traffic will occur as the pavement width
varies. An additional complication which has become awkward in the
approval of development proposals alongRio Road is the location of
median crossovers. The median crossovers under this proposal would
be temporary in nature which would further complicate approval of
plans along this section of Rio Road. The cost of construction for
this "phased" construction of Rio Road Would be higher than what is
currently projected. Unless this additional expense is borne by
others, it will need to be covered in the Secondary Highway Budget.
Finally, traffic disruption of this heavily traveled roadway will be
increased as there will be two periods of construction.
The June 17, 1987, memo from Mr. Huja to the City Planning Commission
discusses five general alternatives which were among the various
alternatives discussed between the City and County staff. County
staff has spent a considerable amount of time looking at a number of
alternatives but has yet to find a reason to support the basic
premise of the City's concerns in this case. We understand that the
City's concerns do exist, but do not feel that the construction of
the project as approved will significantly affect any of the problems
that exist on Rio Road in relation to the City of Charlottesville.
Construction of the project as approved'would, however, significantly
improve traffic flows on this extremely~heavily travelled roadway
which will continue in the near future 5o see increases in the level
of traffic and congestion."
Letter from Mr. Cole Hendrix, City Manager, dated June 23, 1987, reads in
part:
"The City recommends that Rio Road be developed in the following manner
at the present time.
Improvement to five lanes on Rio ROad from Fashion Square to
Northfield Road.
Three lanes from Northfield Road to railroad tracks, including two
moving lanes and one turning lane to be built within the five-lane
right-of-way and leaving a large landscaped median, which in the
future would be reduced or eliminated to complete the five lanes.
Intersection of Rio and Greenbrier should be designed so that
there will be potential for a traffic light in the future at this
intersection.
The City Council also indicated that if the traffic light is placed on
this intersection, it should not allow the right turns on red light so as
to discourage traffic through the Greenbrier neighborhood."
Mr. Bowie asked if the main concern is the southbound traffic heading
toward the City. Mr. Home replied there would not be a continuous left-turn
lane southbound. There would be a constriction of traffic in one of the two
southbound lanes for a left-hand turn. However, the major constriction would
be on northbound traffic. Mr. Home added that the City wants the section of
road at Greenbrier designed so a light can be put in at a later date.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, said he has had no direct
contact with the City. Although in some localities medians are allowed with a
single-lane roadway, he has never see this done for any roadway with as much
traffic, or with a road the length of the project under discussion. His
concerns relate to maintenance of and/or an accident, or a breakdown occurring
on a single-lane road because there is no feasible way to detour traffic and
it would create an unsafe situation. He said if the Board is considering one
lane northbound towards Route 29, he does not believe this will be acceptable
to the Highway Department. Mr. Roosevelt said the Highway Department has
reviewed the intersection at Greenbrier Drive and Rio Road at least twice, and
July 8, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 6)
found that the traffic at that location does not now warrant a traffic signal.
Until the volume coming out of Greenbrier gets to the point to warrant a
traffic signal, he would not recommend that a signal be placed at that point.
Mrs. Cooke asked about the review process for a traffic signal at North-
fields Road. Mr. Roosevelt said that location is reviewed every six to nine
months. It was concluded from the last traffic review that the volume of
traffic at that intersection did not warrant a traffic signal.
Mr. Lindstrom said based on the comments in Mr. Horne's memo, and comment
made by Mr. Roosevelt, along with a careful reading of Mr. Huja's memo, in
particular the pros and cons in Alternative E, that going ahead with the
project as originally proposed makes the most sense.
Mrs. Cooke said she has no reason to suggest anything other than what has
already been planned; and she feels the Board should take no action on this
item and go ahead with what has been planned.
Mr. Way asked if any members of the Board wanted to make a motion to
change the original plan. No motion was made.
Agenda Item No. 6b. Highway Matters: Bus Stop - Georgetown Road.
Memorandum from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., dated July 2, 1987, was received as
follows:
"It was reported to you earlier that three Charlottesville Transit
bus stops had been requested on Georgetown Road. One of the three
stops (200 feet south of Hydraulic Road) would require use of the
roadway shoulder for the bus to pull off the pavement. At the other
two, the bus remains on the pavement, one using a c~rb and gutter
section, the other, pavement at an intersection.
Mr. Roosevelt is concerned the shoulder may not withstand such use,
and improvements to the shoulder at County expense of an estimated
$2000 may be required. Staff proposes a three month trial in the use
of the stops, but was reluctant to proceed without Board concurrence,
recognizing the potential result of County funds possibly being
required. Already buses are making unscheduled stops in this area,
and staff recognizes the need for established stops~
It is recommended that authorization be granted to Proceed with a
three month trial usage. If damage occurs during this period,
¥irginia Department of Transportation will repair the shoulder at
County expense. If the usage during the trial indicates a permanent
stop, Virginia Department of Transportation will make the needed
shoulder improvement as a permanent improvement at County expense.
The funds may have to come from the Board's contingency appropri-
ation, or from the transit appropriation later in the budget year, if
that total appropriation is not disbursed.
Attached for your information is a plat of the stops, and related
correspondence." ~
Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Horne if bus drivers will receive instructions not
stop anywhere but the designated bus stops since unscheduled stops are a
problem. Mr. Horne said he did not know but he will inquire.
Mr. Roosevelt said he was present when the bus stops review was made,
along with Mrs. Helen Poore, of CTS, and a representativ~ of the County, and
they were also concerned about unscheduled stops. Unscheduled stops are mad~
without the approval of the management of the bus company, and they are doin
whatever possible to keep this from occurring. Mr. Roosevelt said that the
three added bus stops would reduce the need for unscheduled stops. In addi-
tion, Mr. Roosevelt said he is agreeable to the cost estimate of $2000 for t'
stop south of Hydraulic Road, and the three month experimental period.
However, if it appears that the area is becoming unstabilized and needs
maintenance, he will let staff know so the Board can decide whether to elimi
ate that bus stop or go ahead with that location as a permanent bus stop.
July 8, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 7)
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to authorize
proceeding on a three-month trial basis with three CTS bus stops on Georgetown
Road, with the understanding that it may require up to $2000 from County funds
to repair the roadway shoulder where one bus pulls of the pavement 200 feet
south of Hydraulic Road; and a letter is to be sent to Charlottesville Transit
to instruct its drivers not to make unscheduled stops in the area.
Before roll was called, Mr. Bowie said he he does not support the money
for the bus stops. However, he will support the motion because of the safety
problem involved. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley,' Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher.
(NOTE: Mr. St. John left the room at 9:40 A.M.)
Agenda Item No. 6c. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Roosevelt said his staff sent a letter to the Board advising that
maintenance work will be performed on the bridge on Route 660. Route 660
between Routes 676 and 662 will be closed the week of July 20 to July 24,
1987. Notices have been posted and a notice has been placed in the newspaper
warning of the closing.
Agenda Item No. 7. Presentation: Virginia Neighborhoods Conference.
Mr. Robert Newman, of the Virginia Neighborhoods Conference, gave a
presentation on the Virginia Neighborhoods Conference, describing their work
with neighborhood associations. He said the Virginia Neighborhoods Conference
believes that well-organized community groups are an essential part of the
local government process, involving citizens in the issues which affect them,
helping citizens understand those issues affecting them, and promoting neighbor-
hood self-reliance. Mr. Newman gave Board members copies of a brochure for
the September 11-12, 1987 Conference in Charlottesville, and he briefly
described the various workshops that will be held. The Conference will be the
scene of the inauguration of the Virginia Ass6ciation of Neighborhoods, an
affiliation of neighborhood associations across Virginia. The Conference has
no one particular sponsor; each year there has been a different sponsor; this
year the Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA) will be the local
sponsor. At this time, Mr. Newman introduced Ms. Jewel Mason.
Ms. Mason said they are present today to ask the Board to distribute
information within the co~nunity about the Conference. She also asked Board
members to encourage members of the community to attend the Conference. The
Conference is made up mainly of grassroots people who come together to learn
how to become better neighbors in the community in which they live. Ms. Mason
briefly described the previous Conference and the results of it.
Mr. Way asked if MACAA is notifying local groups about the Conference.
Ms. Mason replied yes. Mr. Newman said the Conference Planning Committee does
not have much contact with Albemarle County neighborhood/community groups.
Mr. Newman said he hopes to be able to work with County staff to distribute
information to those organizations.
Mrs. Cooke asked if the Conference Planning Committee had received any
response from any organizations in Albemarle County. Mr. Newman replied that
in the past he had seen names of people from Albemarle County on the mailing
list for the Conference. He believes this year's Conference to be held in
Charlottesville will be a good opportunity for local organizations to attend.
Agenda Item No. 8. 10:00 a.m. - Appeal: Turtle Creek Phase VII Revised
Site Plan. (This appeal was brought before the Board by the following letter,
dated June 4, 1987, from Mr. Thomas R. Wyant, Jr., Architect.)
July 8, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 8)
"The purpose of this letter is to note an appeal to you for relief of
the Planning Commission action on June 2, 1987, in which that
Commission denied the proposed Amendment.
This Amendment requested a change from an enclosed tank to detain
stormwater, as dictated by the former County Engineer, to an open
basin. The Developer, Hydraulic Associates Limited Partnership, and
I, as the Architect, believe the originally approved tank to be a not
viable solution to the detention stormwater run-off. We further
believe that this tank, if installed, will require maintenance that
the ultimate owners, the Property Owner's AssociatiQn, will be unable
to cope with. We believe it will adversely affect the project, both
environmentally and economically after the Developer is complete and
no longer controls the property.
The open basin has been successfully used over the county without
undue adverse results. In this case we propose that this basis be
constructed and screened in a way that will not harm the environment
or the quality of life in the community. We respectfully request you
to consider this appeal at the earliest possible date."
Mr. Horne gave the Staff Report as follows:
"Proposal: This is a proposed amendment of the method of stormwater
detention on the approved Turtle Creek Phase VII Site Plan. As
required by the County Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission must
approve the method of stormwater detention.
Acreage: The total area of the site is 5.5 acres.
Zoning: R-15, Residential, with proffer (ZMA-85-23, Hydraulic
Associates).
Location: The property is located on the west side of Commonwealth
Drive and the north side of Northwest Drive adjacent to Eldercare
Gardens. Tax Map 61W, Parcel 03-22. Charlottesville Magisterial
District.
STAFF COMMENT:
This a proposed amendment to the Turtle Creek Phase VII Site Plan
which was approved by the Planning Commission on May 13, 1986. The
proposed amendment includes the use of a surface detention basin in
lieu of an underground stormwater detention tank. The proposed
detention basin will be located approximately 50 feet from the
adjacent apartment buildings and 30 feet from Commonwealth Drive.
The location is along the side bank of the ravine area between this
site and Hunter's Creek apartments.
The applicant is requesting the change in stormwater detention
facilities due to the prohibitive cost of constructing the previously
proposed underground detention tank. There has been no other change
or complication on the site, or change in the development proposal
that would necessitate a change on the method of detention.
The Planning Commission denied a previous site plan amendment request
(on January 30, 1987) to allow the use of a surface detention basin.
The previous amendment proposal called for the basin to be located
immediately adjacent to a parking area and sidewalk, and approxi-
mately 15 feet from an adjacent apartment building. The pond was to
be 12 feet deep. Staff was concerned in part with this location
because of its close proximity to areas where pedestrian traffic
would be prevalent and also because it necessitated the relocation of
the recreational area to a more undesirable location, adjacent to
Commonwealth Drive.
This current proposal has addressed those previous concerns, however
other concerns are raised as a result of this proposal:
July 8, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 9)
This location requires considerable grading on what is now more
gentler slopes that are currently stabilized. The slopes will
be increased to the maximum allowed of 2:1. The County Engineer
has commented the basin design is technically adequate.
The pond, with security fencing around it will be more visible
from Commonwealth Drive and other properties, and will be more
difficult to screen (screening will be required from the public
road and adjacent properties should this proposal be approved).
The basin will be in an area which is more accessible to
children in the neighborhood. This facility, even with security
fencing, may create an attractive nuisance for children in the
area.
As the staff commented on the previous site plan amendment
request of January 20, 1987, there has been no change in circum-
stance on the site since the initial site plan was approved by
the Commission that would necessitate the change in the method
of detention. The site was designed (and site plan reviewed and
approved) under the assumption that underground detention was to
be provided.
Should the Commission choose to approve the site plan amendment,
staff recommends the following:
I. 1.
A Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until the
following condition is met:
Staff approval of revised landscape plan and site
plan indicating the location and screening of
detention basin, and provision of security fence.
Mr. Home said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 2, 1987,
by a vote of 5 to 1, denied the revised site plan.
Mr. Fred Landess came forward and spoke on behalf of the applicant,
giving a brief history of the project. He ~aid originally, the land where the
project is located was zoned R-15; when the Zoning Ordinance was adopted in
1980, the land was downzoned to R-10, which~was judged not to be economically
viable when the time came to develop this project. The developer was advised
he would be able to get the number of units'needed using the bonus factors
allowed in the new zoning ordinance. The site plan was submitted showing
four-bedroom units, and the Planning Commission would not approve the bonus
factors. The plan was approved on the basis of a proffer restricting the
project to one-bedroom units. In addition, the original site plan contained a
surface detention pond, which the County Engineer said he could not approve.
The County Engineer insisted on an underground detention tank. A new site
plan was prepared and submitted that included this and the site plan was
approved by the Planning Commission in May, 1986. Due to cost and other
complications involved, the developer felt an underground detention tank was
not a good idea and submitted an amended site plan with a surface pond approx-
imately where the underground tank would have been located. The Planning
Commission did not feel this was a good location and denied this site plan,
and an appeal was made to the Board, but before being heard, representatives
of the applicant met with County staff to w~rk out an agreeable plan. That
resulted in the site plan now before the Board, which was also denied by the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Landess said it is the applicant's!feeling that the County Engineer's
staff and property owners have a lot of experience in building and maintaining
detention ponds, but no experience in doing the same with underground tanks.
An underground detention tank is an unknown and this is important since the
cost of maintenance will fall on individual>unit owners. Mr. Landess drew the
Board's attention to a map which shows an area where water currently backs up
because the pipe has a limited capacity. Mr. Landess said the two points to
be dealt with are the known factor of a detention pond, and the unknown factor
of an underground detention tank. He concluded by saying Mr. Arthur F.
Edwards and Mr. S. W. Heischman would answer any technical questions asked.
July 8, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 10)
Mr. Edwards indicated the blue and red areas on the map and said they
represent the level the water will achieve during a ten year storm. The pond
will fill up and start to empty; there will be a large amount of water in the
red area, and the tip of the blue area is zero depth. Mrs. Cooke asked how
long it takes this type of area to drain. Mr. Edwards replied in about an
hour. Mrs. Cooke asked if this is a fenced area that drains relatively
quickly, and is of no danger or threat to children in the area. Mr. Edwards
pointed out that the red area is relatively larger and deeper than the pro-
posed surface detention pond.
(NOTE: Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 9:45 A.M.)
Ms. Helen Largen, representing Hunters Creek Apartments, said her con-
cerns relate to the safety of children, the health hazard the pond might pose
if the area becomes swampy, and the unsightliness the pond will pose to the
residents of Hunters Creek. Ms. Largen said if there is a practical, feasible
alternative to the aboveground basin, that is what they would like to see.
Speaking about the area shown in red on the map, Mr. Lindstrom asked Ms.
Largen if a pond actually develops during rainstorms. Ms~ Largen replied it
occurs only during severe rainstorms, but it does not collect for any period
of time. Ms. Largen said her understanding is that once the excavating has
been done and the proposed basin formed, there will be quite a depth of water
that will collect at times. Mrs. Cooke noted that Mr. EdWards advised the
Board that there will be less water in the blue area than~in the red area;
that the blue area drains faster than the red area. She suggested that Mr.
Michael Armm address this question. Ms. Largen said she has seen the open
detention basin near Squire Hill Apartments, and she fears the proposed basin
will grow to be the same as it; it is extremely swampy.
Mr. Michael Armm, County Engineer, said the big issue is the cost of
construction; the underground facility will cost substantially more than an
aboveground facility. He differed with Mr. Landess' co~nents on the cost of
maintenance and the underground tank being an "unknown" situation. Mr. Armm
said there are a handful of underground facilities in the iCounty now; they
have also been used in industry across the country. He said it has been shown
that this type of facility works, and the cost of maintenance is comparable to
that of an aboveground facility if it is properly constructed. Staff has
analyzed both types of facilities and found that both technically meet the
requirements of the zoning ordinance. The only concern Mr. Armmhas on the
aboveground facility is that it will be constructed on the side of a steep
slope; however, it will work if properly constructed.
Mrs. Cooke asked what problems come up, such as swampy areas, mosquitos,
etc., in aboveground detention basins. Mr. Armm replied ~hat generally most
of the basins drain quite well; there is no problem with Standing water.
He said physical inspections by staff quite often show that the outlet
structures are not maintained; some outlets do become clogged with debris
because of the small openings, which are designed to slow the waterflow.
However, this can also happen with an underground facility~ and it is impor-
tant to point this out. Mrs. Cooke asked who is responsible for maintenance
of the drains. Mr. Armm replied that maintenance is the responsibility of the
property owner. Mr. Henley asked which type of facility will require the most
maintenance. Mr. Armm replied that he thinks it is about ~qual~ they can both
be maintained for the same cost, but cannot be built for the same cost. Mr.
Bowie asked if there have been any complaints about safety~ health, or swampy
conditions concerning the large pond. Mr. Armm said staff has had no regis-
tered complaints.
With no one else coming forward to speak, the public hearing was closed.
(NOTE: Mr. Henley left the room at 9:~9 A.M.)
Mr. Lindstrom said it seems to him a good case has been made for the
subterranean basin; staff has recon~nended it and continues to recommend itl
the Planning Commission has voted to support the concept. It will become more
important in the future for urban type development, and this is an appropriate
place to require one; this development was predicated upon.there being a
subterranean basin. If the County does not require a subterranean basin where
it is appropriate now, it will not be able to impose it in the future; there
July 8, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 11)
are enough "pro's" to support the Planning Commission's recommendation.
(NOTE: Mr. Henley returned to the meeting at 9:51 A.M.)
Mr. Henley asked Mr. Armm the capacity of an underground basin. Mr. Armm
replied he does not have the numbers available, but the capacity is the same
as required in an aboveground basin. Mr. Henley asked where the play area
will be located. Mr. Home replied it will be located on top of the tank.
Mr. Henley then asked where it would be located with an open basin. Mr. Horne
pointed out the area on the map. Mrs. Cooke asked what safety precautions
will be taken to prevent anyone from gettingithrough the manhole entrance to
the underground tank, and what liability the!owner would incur should that
happen and an accident take place. Mr. Home replied that the area is
actually a picnic area, it will not be a children's play area. Mr. Armm
replied that the manhole will be located on top of the tank, and will not
appear as anything other than a grassy area.
Mrs. Cooke said this property is in the Charlottesville district and she
is having a difficult time deciding what is best; from a safety standpoint and
a functional standpoint, both types of facility are equal. However, Mrs.
Cooke is concerned that the extra cost of installing the underground facility
will not be borne by the developer, but by the people who will live in the
complex. She agrees with Mr. Lindstrom thatithe flexibility of having the two
types of facilities available to the County ~here it is necessary, is a good
point. For this reason, Mrs. Cooke said she~supports the recommendations of
staff.
Mr. Way asked Mr. St. John if it is necessary to have a motion on this
item. Mr. St. John replied no. If no action is taken, the Planning Commis-
sion's decision stands.
Mr. Bowie said he has problems with pushing new ideas on a project just
to see if they work; however, it is known this will work. He said he is doing
nothing at this time because from the start the facility was to be located
underground, and the buildings are now built ~based on the original site plan,
which was submitted showing an underground detention facility.
Mr. Henley said he feels as Mr. Bowie does; if there was a big problem,
he would support making a change. However, the project has gone this far, and
most things are equal except for the cost of construction for the underground
tank.
Mr. Way said that hearing no motion, the decision of the Planning Commis-
sion stands.
(NOTE: The meeting was recessed at 9:53 A.M., and reconvened at 10:00
A.M.)
Agenda Item No. 9. Appeal: Westgate V Site Plan. (This appeal was
brought before the Board by the following letter, dated June 25, 1987, from
Mr. Donald J. Wagner, of Great Eastern Management Co., Inc.)
"We hereby request a review by the Boardof Supervisors of the
Planning Commission's action of June 23, 1987 concerning the
application for site plan approval by Westgate Phase V. This request
is made in accordance with the provision of paragraph 32.7.6 of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance.
Specifically, we intend to request the Board to approve the site plan
with conditions as included in the staff report with the exception of
deletion of the phrase "not to include an open pond" in condition c.
It is our intention to prepare a written summary of our position and
provide it to you and the Board prior to the hearing date.
We have already completed the preliminary plans for utilities,
grading, drainage, and landscaping based on our submitted site plan
design. This was done in anticipation of beginning site work in mid
July to accommodate a very tight construction schedule which would
enable us to complete the preliminary site work and have buildings
under roof before the unpredictable winter weather months. The
July 8, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 12)
unprecedented and unexpected Planning Commission action prohibiting a
storage pond severely threatens our schedule, particularly from a
personnel standpoint."
Before giving the Staff Report, Mr. Horne said this is a preliminary site
plan, in accordance with the new site plan ordinance. This site has not been
approved; discussion is taking place now to discover what is appropriate; this
is the unique advantage to a preliminary site plan; major issues are discussed
beforehand. Mr. Horne gave the Staff Report as follows:
"Proposal: To locate 24 apartment units in four buildings. The
units will consist of eighteen two-bedroom units and six one-bedroom
units to be served by 47 parking spaces. Access to the site will be
from existing entrances on Hydraulic and Georgetown Roads, through
the existing Westgate Apartments.
Acreage: 1.3 acres.
Zoning: R-15, with Special Use Permit (SP-78-22).
Location: On the south side of Georgetown Road (Route 656) adjacent
to the Old Dominion Day School and Westgate. Tax Map 60Al, Parcels
29, 33 and 35. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
STAFF COMMENT:
On January 22, 1985, the Planning Commission approved the Westgate ¥
site plan for a total of 30 dwellings in five buildings. Proposed
access was from a private road which would also serve the Old Domin-
ion Day School and The Commons at Georgetown site plan. This
Westgate ¥ Site Plan was not pursued and has since expired. The
present plan proposes a modification of a portion of the existing
adjacent Westgate parking lot, to permit access to the proposed
apartments. Planning staff recommends revision to modify existing
parking space(s) which may conflict with this proposed travelway.
On June 2, 1987, the Commission recommended approvalito the Board of
Supervisors of $P-87-24 for Sharon Jones. This petition to expand
the adjacent Old Dominion Day School utilizes shared ~stormwater
detention facilities with the present Westgate V plan. While none of
the road improvements applicable to SP-87-24 are proposed with the
present Westgate V plan, some of the necessary right-of-way dedica-
tion will be completed. The Virginia Department of Transportation
commented, 'The entrance on Route 743 is along the section of four-
lane roadway, however, the entrance on Route 656 does have a right-
turn lane but no left-turn lane.' A left-turn lane is not practical
due to the proximity of this entrance to the intersection of Route
656 and Route 743.
The drainage divide for the watershed practically bisects this
property. This plan proposes directing the site stormwater out of
the watershed. This is recommended in this case due to the negli-
gible amount of water and the presence of drainage problems from
water crossing Georgetown Road into the watershed. The Commission
may recall that on several occasions Ms. Gay Johnson Blair, a
property owner across Georgetown Road from this site,~has expressed
concern over this drainage problem affecting her property.
In staff's opinion, the proposed recreation area meets the Ordinance
in terms of size and equipment. However, staff wishes to work with
the applicant to determine if there is a more suitable location. The
proposed location is approximately 18 feet from existing parking for
Westgate and 12 feet from the edge of pavement for upgraded George-
town Road. If there is no more suitable location, staff will require
higher fencing and more screening than proposed.
The proposed stormwater detention facility is an open pond approxi-
mately 140 feet long and four to five feet deep. The top of the berm
will be approximately five feet from the proposed day care center
July 8, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 13)
building, adjacent to a 20 foot utility easement, 22 feet from the
proposed edge of pavement for the future private internal road, and
12 feet from the proposed sidewalk for the closest apartment build-
ing.
Section 32.7.4 states: 'Provisions shall be made for the disposition
of surface water runoff from the site including such on-site and
off-site drainage facilities and drainage easements as the Commis-
sion, upon recommendation of the County Engineer, may deem adequate.'
Planning and Engineering staff recommend that the applicantutilize
some form of detention other than an open pond. The applicant has
obtained an estimate of $35,000 for underground detention and decided
against it on the basis of cost. The County Engineer has noted that
some alternatives include porous pavement design, infiltration
trenches, and off-site detention, among others.
Recommendation for another method of detention is based on the
following:
a. The proximity to the expanded child care facility;
b. The proximity to sanitary sewer and other utilities;
c. The proximity to proposed buildings, sidewalks; and
de
There appears to be little or no room for landscaping the pond
and day care center from Georgetown Road.
This plan will meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and
staff recommends approval subject to the following:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. A building permit will not be signed until the following
conditions have been met:
me
Issuance of an erosion control permit in compliance with
approved conservation plan;
be
County Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans
and calculations;
Ce
County Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans
and calculations for method of detention not to include
an open pond;
Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final
water and sewer plans;
e. Fire Officer approval;
fe
Recordation of plat such that a) all setbacks are in
accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, and b) additional
right-of-way is dedicated as applicable to this property;
ge
Planning staff approval of landscape plan and recreation
plan;
Planning and engineering staff approval of revision to
existing Westgate parking lot which permits access
connection.
A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the
following condition has been met:
a. Fire Officer final approval.
The previous plan for this development had shown access to Route 656
and this entrance was to be upgraded in accordance with the approvals
given for both this previous site plan and The Commons at Georgetown
July 8, 19'87 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 14)
site plan. This upgraded entrance included a left-turn lane on Route
656 to serve this development. This plan shows the access to be
internally within Westgate, and therefore, all traffic would use the
existing entrances on Routes 656 and 743. The entrance on 743 is
along the section of four-lane roadway, however, the entrance on 656
does have a right-turn lane but no left-turn lane. The Department
recommends that the additional right-of-way needed for the entrance
improvements on Route 656 be shown on this site plan. This addi-
tional right-of-way will need to be shown on a plat and recorded
before the entrance is upgraded in accordance with the previous
approvals."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 23, 1987,
unanimously approved the site plan subject to the conditions in the staff's
report.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Robert S. Turner, representing Great Eastern Management Company,
Inc., said the stormwater detention issue was discussed in the site review
process; no firm mention was made of using any alternative other than an open
pond, although other alternatives were looked at. Before the Planning
Commission meeting, Great Eastern was notified that the Planning staff recom-
mended against an open pond. Subsequent to that recommendation, the pond
location was moved further towards Georgetown Road, allowing more area between
the day care center and the pond, to act as a better buffer and to allow room
for landscaping to screen the area. Visibility from Georgetown Road will be
blocked by a four foot high berm above road level; however, the area will be
visible to residents of the apartment complex. As recommended by Mr. Armm,
both aboveground and underground facilities are feasible at this location.
Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, a shallower pond was developed.
Mr. Turner pointed out the brown colored area on the map and said this repre-
sents a ten year storm, which develops a pond 2.09 feet deep in about 15
minutes; the grades toward the day care center are very shallow. Great
Eastern feels the shallowness of the pond, as well as the~general grades,
address the safety issue; that fencing is not appropriate~on a pond, but it is
another question for the day care center. Planning staffiand the County
Engineer say the open pond system will work, and this is ~hy the appeal is
being made. In addition, because of the grading, the potential for erosion is
very little. Mr. Turner said Ms. Sharon Jones, representing the day care
center, testified at the Planning Commission meeting that the area is not
intended for a playground, and any children in that area will be supervised.
Concerning children from the apartment complex, it is the policy of Westgate
not to rent to families with children in the six to 14 year age group, and
Great Eastern does not foresee any future problems regarding this. Mr. Turner
said Great Eastern would prefer an open pond situation; if there is any
concern over the depth of the pond, Mr. Turner is sure a lesser depth can be
worked out; that this is a viable alternative for stormwa~er detention. Mr.
Turner said they have had no problems with the three foot!detention pond
located at Pantops, which is unfenced and which children use at all times of
the day.
Mr. Way asked how long it would take for the pond to drain. Mr. Turner
replied in approximately one to two hours.
Mr. Thomas Michie, representing Ms. Gay Johnson Blai~ who lives across
the road from the proposed site, presented Board members with a copy of a
topographical map and pictures of Ms. Blair's property. Me pointed out two
swales going around Ms. Blair's house that enter into a lake, which drains
into the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. Mr. Michie said their concern is with
the water runoff onto Ms. Blair's property. He directed Board members'
attention to a particular picture taken during a thunder shower, showing water
gushing down the day care center's driveway. He said when more pavement is
laid down because of further development for parking lots and such, there will
be more runoff and this is their basic concern. Ms. Blair has a lovely home;
they are concerned about the degradation of the lake, and with oil and debris
in the runoff crossing Ms. Blair's property and winding up in the reservoir.
Mr. Michie said an important point to remember is that Georgetown Road is the
dividing line between the drainage area into the reservoir and that which
July 8, 1987 (Regular Meeting)'
(Page 15)
flows to the east. Intense development is being allowed on the property,
which is outside the reservoir area, and the Board has a strong duty to
protect the reservoir from that. Ms. Blair is also concerned because the soil
on her property is rocky, and she is worried about her well becoming polluted.
Mr. Michie said the Board should take into aCcount, when considering the
widening of Georgetown Road, that an equal amount of land be taken from each
side of the road. If the drainage pond is allowed to be placed close to the
road, the Highway Department may decide to shift the road to Ms. Blair's side,
and it would be inappropriate to save money at Ms. Blair's expense. Mr.
Michie said it seems to them that the developer is trying to put too much on
the property. If intense development will be allowed because the property is
not in the reservoir area, the Board should uphold the standard very high and
cause the developer a little extra expense that will help prevent water from
running into the reservoir area and onto Ms. Blair's property. Mr. Michie
asked that the Board act consistently in this concern, and that the Board
uphold the reco~nendations of staff.
Mr. Lindstrom said he understands that Ms. Blair has no objection to the
project as long as stormwater detention is adequately provided for, that there
is proper screening, and that the location of the facility will not necessi-
tate taking land from her side of the road for the widening of Georgetown
Road. Mr. Michie said that is essentially what he is saying, that the pond
violates those criteria, and an underground facility will not.
Mr. Turner said the issue before the Board is above or underground
storage; no matter what happens, the water will go in the same direction. He
directed the Board's attention to a red line on the map, saying the left of
the line is south, natural drainage; the right is drainage to the reservoir.
The majority of the parking lot is in reservoir drainage; flow will be
diverted away from the reservoir, and any oil and grease from the parking lot
will be diverted to the south side of Georgetown Road. Concerning the widen-
ing of Georgetown Road, Mr. Turner said land, and a right-of-way have already
been provided for to construct a left-turn lane to serve the day care center.
If Georgetown Road is made into a four-lane road, Great Eastern feels they
have provided the third lane and it is only fair that land on the other side
of the road be used for a fourth lane.
Mr. Michie said that although Georgetown Road is the boundary, the
Mowinkle property (the site under consideration) is on the high side of the
road, so water does drain off the property. With no curbs and gutters on
Georgetown Road, water comes across the road and onto Ms. Blair's property.
Mr. Way asked Mr. Armm to make a comment. Mr. Armm said he agrees with
Mr. Turner in that whichever facility is constructed, runoff will drain in the
same direction. Mr. Armm said the red line on the map is the drainage divide.
The land on the right side of the line is tributary to the watershed. He said
at the Planning Commission meeting it was decided to divert the flow from a
small amount of the property to the left-hand side of the red line to put it
in a nonwatershed area to achieve runoff control. This is am exception to the
rule because of the type of runoff being generated. In addition, Mr. Armm
said water from an area of the proposed roadway going into the Mowinkle tract
now flows across the road onto the property across the road. Requirements for
installation of the road include drainage improvements and changes in grade
that will prevent that crossing.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Armm if staff recommended an underground system.
Mr. Armm replied that at an informal meeting~with the developer, because of
the density of the site and other factors, staff suggested that the developer
go to an alternative, but not necessarily an~underground tank. However, due
to the cost, the developer wanted to go with~an aboveground facility; staff
was willing to accept the plans and analyze them in this light. Technically,
an aboveground facility will work. The decision is one of planning and
policy, and a policy will have to be established based on density, land use,
etc.
Mr. Bowie said the water is going to go where it is going to go, whether
it is collected aboveground or underground; most of what has been said has
nothing to do with the appeal. Mr. Armm said yes. In addition, the entrance
improvements are tied to the development of the adjacent tract.
July 8, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page I6)
Mr. Henley said he has a problem concerning the children at the day care
center; it looks like the only place for a play area is at the other end of
the property. Mr. Horne replied that there is an existing playground area for
the existing day care center that will continue to be utilized with the new
building.
Mr. Way asked if other persons wished to speak on this appeal.
Ms. Sharon Jones, the operator of the day care center, said she has some
concerns about which type of plan will be implemented, particularly the plan
that calls for the use of manhole covers. Ms. Jones said her concern relates
to the time when someone might leave the cover off and a child might fall in
the opening. This is more of an issue than the pond. She hopes people
realize that the intense development taking place is for the community good;
there are child care problems in the community that will be addressed. She
said the savings talked about will not only be for the developer but for the
people in the apartments as well. She said she would not want the runoff
problems Ms. Blair talked about, but Ms. Jones believes with the new construc-
tion, the problems will be solved.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Ms. Jones if her financial situation will be affected
by the Board's decision. Ms. Jones replied yes.
Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. Armm to describe what the manhole covers will look
like when they are installed. Mr. Armm did so. He added' that his experience
has been that the manhole covers have not been a real problem or hazard.
With no one else coming forward to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowie said he does not see any problems with removing the words "not
to include an open pond" from Condition lc. Mr. Home said if the words are
deleted from Condition lc, the approval would stand for what has been submit-
ted; what has been submitted is an open pond, and staff would feel authorized
to approve it that way.
Mr. Lindstrom said these are the first two cases the Board has looked at
concerning this issue. If the Board is evolving a de facto policy that "every
detention system is going to be underground," then he feels that requires a
little more perspective than what one site plan application gives. He is not
sure if a closed situation is not better than an open one, particularly having
heard the complaints about open ponds. He asked the staff's general feeling.
Mr. Home said the same issue came up at the Planning Commission meeting. A
suggestion was made that all properties zoned R-15 and above should require
belowground detention. The staff would not support this as an outright
requirement; depending on conditions, staff does not think a belowground
facility is preferable in all cases; aboveground is fine, depending on the
configuration of the site. Staff thinks guidelines should be developed, but
not based strictly on a given density. Mr. Lindstrom said in this case staff
felt that given the circumstances, it made more sense to have an underground
system. Mr. Horne replied yes; there are certain unique ~hings in this
application that staff thought this development merited an underground facil-
ity. Mr. Armm said he believes this expresses the opinion of the Engineering
Department also. Mr. Lindstrom said the issue of cost is iwhat has brought
these appeals to the Board. Mr. Armm said that an underg=Ound detention
system will, at least, double the cost of drainage improvements. Mr.
Lindstrom asked the cost of an open pond. Mr. Armm said if this is done as
the site is graded cost is roughly $7,500.
Mr. Henley pointed out on the map that the open basin takes up more room
because it has been made shallower and graded away from the day care center.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the Planning Commission took the right step; the
Planning Commission was right in following staff's recommendation.
Mrs. Cooke said she is concerned that the Board is being asked to con-
sider the cost to the developer, or buyer, or purchaser. As high and as
expensive as property and rents are, Mrs. Cooke is not sure it is appropriate
for the Board to be concerned with those matters on an individual basis. What
is before the Board is a decision as to what is best for the general public,
not for individual financial concerns. Developers have to address whether
they can or cannot afford to do something. The Board is not in the business
July 8, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 17)
of looking out for the financial well-being of applicants. In light ofthis,
Mrs. Cooke said she supports the recommendation of staff and the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Henley said he feels the same. He thinks the open pond will take up
too much land that could better be used for other things. He is not going to
second-guess the Planning Commission or staff.
Mr. Bowie said he has no problem with this except that he sees this as
what he calls "de facto policy." The Board hears two appeals in a row and
staff immediately assumes that there is new Board policy. If there is to be a
change in policy, staff should come up with guidelines so an applicant has
some idea of what is required before deciding to invest in a development.
Mr. Way asked for a motion from a member of the Board. Hearing no
motion, he said the recommendation of the Planning Commission will stand.
Agenda Item No. 10. Presentation: ConAgra.
Mr. Jim Bodges, of ConAgra Frozen Foods~ made the following presentation
on the expansion of ConAgra's plant in Croze~. He said there are several
issues relating to the cost of the project that would make the project
prohibitive to ConAgra; the benefit to the community is approximately 161
additional jobs in an existing business ConAgra believes has very little
impact on the current environment in the areA. ConAgra presently has 800
employees working approximately 20 hours per'week. The proposed project would
require 65 additional employees for the 161 additional jobs, increasing
existing employment to almost full-time. Of the almost $7 million of invest-
ment that must be spent, approximately 90 percent is for machinery and equip-
ment, including a wastewater treatment plant; and approximately $350,000 is
for environmental issues. Mr. Bodges said he is at the meeting to ask for
any help the Board can render on the wastewater treatment issue. ConAgra has
investigated the possibility of grants, loans, etc., and it does not appear
that grants will be available. ConAgra is prepared to move forward with the
project, except for the cost of the waste water treatment plant, which is
prohibitive and does not give the return necessary.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Bodges what ConAgra is concerned about. Mr.
Bodges gave a brief description of the wasteWater treatment process. He
concluded by saying clean water is discharged into a creek behind the plant.
At this point, Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Bodges meant clean except for phos-
phates. Mr. Bodges said the discharge is acceptable under current regula-
tions. However, the regulations for the interceptor line are being changed
and will require, when ConAgra is hooked to the interceptor line, that ConAgra
remove solids from the wastewater and do something with them. Currently,
solids are removed and spread over the land ConAgra owns. Part of the monies
for the wastewater treatment plant are to be used to put the solids into a
form that can be hauled to a landfill. Mr. Bodges said there will be
increased usage which makes sending BOD's through the interceptor line to the
County's Wastewater Treatment Plant another issue. Mr. Lindstrom asked if
hooking up to the interceptor created a problem, that ConAgra would rather
treat at its own plant. Mr. Bodges said yes~ he has been led to believe that
pre-treatment is the only way to go. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the treated water
will go into Lickinghole Creek and then to the reservoir. Mr. Bodges said
yes.
Mrs. Cooke said she received no paperwork concerning this proposal. She
said there is no way she can make a decision or advance an opinion without
prior material.
Mr. Henley said he met several weeks ago with representatives of ConAgra
and they asked him if someone could come andmake this presentation to the
Board. He spoke with Mr. Agnor and that is the reason it is on the agenda
today. Mr. Henley does not think ConAgra expects any action from the Board;
ConAgra just wants to present the problem to the Board to see if the Board can
help them in any way.
Mrs. Cooke said generally anyone who comes to the Board with a request
furnishes the Board with some material or some written dialogue on it. Mr.
July 8, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 18)
Bodges said there is no request at this point; ConAgra wants the Board to be
informed of their activities and the project, with its benefit to the com-
munity. Mr. Bodges said ConAgra wants the Board to know that they are wrestl-
ing with the problems of the cost of wastewater treatment and environmental
issues that are making the project very prohibitive to ConAgra. Mr. Bodges
said ConAgra has investigated mlternatives involving State and Federal fund-
ing, and found those sources to be moot at this point. He said ConAgra is
requesting any guidance or help that can be rendered by the Board, or by
County officials, ConAgra would appreciate any help they can get.
Mr. Way asked Mr. J. W. Brent, of the Albemarle County Service Authority,
for his comments. Mr. Brent said the staff of the ACSA has met with represent
atives of ConAgra, and staff appreciates the problems ConAgra is having in
trying to gear up the plant to the previous level of operation and to create
new positions. Mr. Brant said it is important to remind the Board that the
ACSA has a contract by which the Rivanna Water and Sewer AUthority and the
ACSA constructed a sewer project into which ConAgra could discharge waste-
water, and ConAgra agreed to connect. The ACSA has reviewed an engineering
report on ConAgra's pre-treatment program. The strength Of the discharge into
the sewer is so great that it must be pre-treated down to<an acceptable level
before it enters the sewer; therefore, a treatment facility must be maintained
on the site. Mr. Brant said ConAgra has a problem with solids accumulating in
a lagoon on the property, which will have to be dried out and trucked to the
Ivy Landfill. Mr. Brant said the ACSA knows of the costs involved in ConAgra'
renovations, and would like to offer ConAgra encouragement in finding sources
of funding. However, the ACSA, itself, has been looking for external sources
of funds for a number of years and has never found any. Mr. Brant concluded
by saying the ACSA is anxious to work with ConAgra.
Mr. Lindstrom said everything that has been said so far is vague and
nebulous. He feels a consequence of the request would be to let ConAgra out
of its contract, which is one of the basic reasons the CrQzet interceptor line
was built. Mr. Lindstrom said after all the litigation that occurred he is
not about to agree to that. Mr. Henley said Mr. Lindstrom probably thinks
that when the sewer is installed, it will solve all problems; however,
ConAgra must pre-treat the waste. Mr. Henley said he did not realize the
RWSA could not accept the waste ConAgra is discharging. Mr. Lindstrom asked
if the pre-treatment will result in a discharge that will!not be acceptable
into the interceptor, no matter how it is treated. Mr. Brant replied that
there should be no unacceptable discharge. Mr. Agnor said this has been know~
for years in terms of the water standard requirements. M=. Henley said he did
not know this. Mr. Lindstrom said this was part of the agreement; it was the
reason for the complexity of the negotiations.
Mr. Bowie said he thought the presentation was going ito be informational.
Now he feels ConAgra either wants out of the contract or does not want to
treat the waste, but he is not sure which. Mr. Henley said he does not think
ConAgra wants to get out of the contract; ConAgra just wants to know if there
is someway it can receive the Board's support in getting gome financial aid.
Mrs. Cooke asked if grants are available. She commented that as the
County is confronted with more and more environmental controls, there are a
number of businesses and industries in the area faced with disposing of waste,
and they must accept the controls and make adjustments. Mrs. Cooke said she
does not think it is appropriate for the Board to entangle itself in the
financial problems of private business. If the Board makes concessions for
one application, it will have to do it for others. This is not the role of
government.
Mr. Brant said in the discussions with ConAgra there has been no indica-
tion they do not intend to honor the contract; he does notbelieve that is
their intention. ConAgra is at the meeting to make the Board aware of the
problems it is having. In addition, Mr. Brant said ConAgra has engaged
engineers; they did not realize the price tag or the difficulties that would
come up in continuing to operate.
Mr. Bodges said ConAgra agrees wastewater treatment problems is part of
the cost of doing business, but it is a cost in a very competitive environ-
ment; it can either create jobs or put a company out of business. He said if
there are opportunities available to help with the problem, it gives an
July 8, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 19)
3¸9
industry the upper hand if it takes advantage of those opportunitieS. After
an investigation into low-cost funding, it was determined that Albemarle
County had already submitted a housing projeet for funding of this type, which
was granted. Mr. Bodges said this is the only funding available at this
point. There is no relief unless the County decides to turn in the funds,
reapply for them, and then use the funds for employment rather than housing.
Mr. Bodges concluded by saying, ConAgra has no intention of backing out of any
contract that it has submitted to.
(NOTE: Mr. Henley left the meeting at 12:25 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 13. Recess for lunch. .At 12:28 P.M., motion was offered
by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adjourn into executive session. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher and Mr. Henley.
After roll was called,'Mr. Lindstrom said the motion must be clarified to
include legal matters pertaining to potential litigation regarding Route 29
North and the County vs. Williams. Motion was again offered by Mr. Bowie,
seconded by Mrs. Cooke. Roll was called again and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher and Mr. Henley.
The Board reconvened into open session at 1:41 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 14. Discussion: Moderate Rehabilitation Program re:
Whitewood Village Apartments.
Mr. Way said this is a continuation of a discussion from last week on the
Moderate Rehabilitation Program. The primary purpose of this item being
scheduled is to hear a report from Mr. George Gilliam concerning his opinion
on legal issues raised, and to allow additional opportunity for members of the
public to make comments.
At this time, Mr. Way said that Mr. Gilliam is out of town. He asked if
someone was present to speak for Mr. Gilliam.
Mr. Bob Crytzer, speaking as President of the Oak Forest Neighborhood
Association, thanked the Board for the continuance of the public meeting,
which allowed time to study the matter legally through Mr. Gilliam's office
and his resources. Mr. Gilliam reported to the Association that after study-
ing the procedure used for the agreement, he'found that the County had met the
minimum legal requirements for the application. The Association is at the
meeting to emphasize its disappointment that~only the minimum legal require-
ment was met. With three days preparation time for the last meeting and a
week's preparation time for this meeting, the Association acquired a lot of
information. In order to make informed decisions and take an informed stand,
a great deal of research was conducted, and time was spent in studying the
information and talking with people. As a spokesman, Mr. Crytzer is here to
say the Board should have done likewise. There is still no answer as to why
the site was not made public. Mr. Gilliam advised the Association that normal
procedure requires two signatures on the contract, the apartment owner's and
approval by the Board after a public hearing. Mr. Crytzer requested that in
the future, if there is a continuation of the clustered subsidized arrange-
ment, there be a site specific hearing so people can have input. In the
future, everyone concerned will be watching FSE (the management agency for
Whitewood Village Apartments) in terms of its response the needs of tenants.
Ms. Linda Perkins, a resident of Oak Forest, said on June 28 the resi-
dents learned through a newspaper article that the County was subsidizing the
Whitewood Village Apartments. In subsequent/calls to Supervisors and County
planners, residents were taken to task for not being alert, involved citizens,
July 8, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 20)
because of a failure to detect a policy change from scattered to clustered
housing that appeared in a February news article. Ms. Perkins learned in a
telephone conversation with Mr. Horne that she would have been denied access
to site information until May 7 even if she had read the article. Ms. Perkins
expressed dismay at a County government deliberately denying public access to
information considered highly controversial and of critical interest. Ms.
Perkins submitted that the Board met only the bare minimum of responsible and
ethical public accountability. Had opinions been sought, Ms. Perkins is
confident people would not have voiced opposition to scattered-site subsidized
housing. Mr. Bradshaw's statement is a confirmation of their belief that
scattered housing works for everyone, allows the poor to be more fairly and
fully integrated, and preserves the dignity of the poor. Newspaper accounts
of problems at City facilities such as Westhaven and Garrett Square are
testimony that the quality of living in these projects is less than what
anyone would demand for their own families. The Albemarle Housing Improvement
Program meets critical housing needs and instills a sense of pride and hope in
recipients. Ms. Perkins asked the Board of Supervisors to vote for a return
to scattered-site housing in meeting low-income housing needs. She commented
that FSE has offered assurances that all will be better than ever at Whitewood
Village under the new proposal, but FSE is highly suspect~ During the four
years since FSE purchased the Whitewood property, they have been bad neigh-
bors, evidenced by unsightly trash areas, littered parking lots and roadsides,
an increase in loitering on the property, and a rapid deterioration of the
buildings and grounds. Ms. Perkins learned in conversations with tenants that
there is a lack of answering tenants requests for improvements, even though
rent was raised $85 per month over a two-year period. Residents of Oak Forest
are concerned that FSE made very little effort to offer q~ality housing at an
affordable price in a competitive market. Ms. Perkins said with a guaranteed
rent for 15 years there is no incentive to provide qualit~ housing because the
competitive market factor has been removed. She asks that the County keep an
eye on the project to assure things are kept "shipshape."~ Ms. Perkins would
like to see a committee of tenants/management/County representatives and
representatives from adjacent neighborhoods meeting regularly to insure
successful planning and maintenance of the subsidized apartments. She is
concerned about the scarcity of grassy areas and the lack~of playground
equipment. It is appalling that during the planning process officials did not
give this a thought until the issue was raised at the last meeting, when
everyone was informed by Mr. Collins that he did not know,if there would be
money in the budget for these items. Ms. Perkins asked if the budget of
$340,000 for major renovations is adequate to provide qua=rets that are
habitable; if there is a budget for future repairs~ who will be watchdog to
insure the property is properly maintained and tenants' needs are met. Ms.
Perkins concluded by saying she hopes the Board and County planning will be
more accountable to Whitewood Village tenants in overseeing the proper opera-
tion of the program than they have been to citizens who were bypassed in
making the decision. Democracy demands that citizen input be respected,
invited and valued in deliberations. Decency demands that occupants of the
units at Whitewood Village not be placed and forgotten, but protected and
offered vigilance in holding FSE to its responsibilities.
Mr. Jim Butler, not representing any particular group, said he is opposed
to large numbers of poor people being placed in a particular area. He recog-
nizes the Board's position in finding adequate housing for people. The Board
has a responsibility to see that developments, landlords, and people who run
projects do the job necessary to keep a high quality of life for all. Citi-
zens are responsible to do whatever possible to see that come about. It has
been proved that in an undesirable climate, young people do not learn and
achieve as well as those in a better climate; crime is more concentrated in
poor neighborhoods and spreads out to surrounding areas. Citizens, law
enforcement officials, and policies set by the Board have an important role to
play. Mr. Butler commented that there were no black peopl~ at the meeting
because black people are working two jobs and cannot take off to attend a
public hearing. Mr. Butler hopes his shared ideas help the Board make
decisions, become more concerned about what is happening to all citizens, and
attempt to provide some guidelines to do this. Mr. Butler~believes people
become antisocial because they feel like society has not treated them right.
Ms. Christa Thomasson, who lives in Oak Forest, returned to Virginia 15
years ago to reestablish state residency so she could put herself through
school. ~rhen looking for a home, she looked for an area with neighbors she
July 8, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 21)
could trust to support her, a safe and accessible play area for her child,
good schools, accessibility to public transportation, and an area within
walking distance to stores. When Ms. Thomasson heard Whitewood Village was to
be occupied by people in her former situation, she was distressed. She
believes prospective tenants are being screened carefully; however, when
residents move in and find amenities are no~ there, they may be tempted to
move out. Ms. Thomasson understands from talking with Mr. Home that if
tenants move out, the owners have 60 days of covered rent, and after that they
must put someone else in. If there is a constant turnover of tenants, Ms.
Thomasson is concerned apartment standards may deteriorate. Another concern
is the lack of a play area for children. Ms% Thomasson said there is a bus
stop about onD-half mile away, which is not well lit. Area residents take
approximately one and one-half hours to get to work and this would be discour-
aging if child care is a consideration. There are no outside areas for people
to sit or congregate without being in the parking lot. In conclusion, Ms.
Thomasson said she believes a hearing might have brought issues out and
agitated the community enough to generate more publicity, concern, and aware-
ness of the problem. It is important to remind people about issues and people
will then come forward.
Mr. Ken Ackerman, Executive Director of Monticello Area Co~nunity Action
Agency (MACAA), presented the Board with a memorandum regarding MACAA's
interest in expanding their involvement with~housing services in Albemarle
County, particularly with the Whitewood Village project. Mr. Ackerman said he
spoke with Mr. Home and with Mr. Bradshaw about some ideas. The details have
to be worked out, but he will present the basic concepts. Mr. Ackerman gave a
brief summary of the services MACAA provides~to the County. As a HUD desig-
nated agency, on behalf of MACAA, Mr. Ackerman then submitted proposals for
consideration by the Board. These deal with funds to be provided to MACAA for
specialized housing counseling services; reservation of three to five units at
Whitewood Village for placement of clients by MACAA, with rental costs under-
written by other than Section 8 funds, and with services provided to help
resolve crisis situations. Mr. Ackerman said he appreciates the opportunity
to present the concepts. He looks forward to the possibility of the County
using MACAA's expertise to further meet the needs of area residents. (The
complete text of the memo is on file in the Clerk's office.)
Mr. Lee Nunn, who lives at 1323 Pen Oak Court, Oak Forest, said the
residents living in Oak Forest are in favor of doing something about the
shortage of affordable housing in the County, but they object to insinuations
made to the contrary. Mr. Nunn is upset about the lack of input sought into
the location of the project. He does not understand how the location could be
approved without knowledge of the site. In order to make an informed decision,
the Board needs to hear all points of view. Mr. Nunn asked how informed the
Board is on the management record of the current owners of this and other
properties, or on the suitability of the property for handicapped people or
children. An adult swimming pool and blacktop parking lots as a play area for
children is absurd. Mr. Nunn said he would like to see two things happen in
the future: 1) that the Board never makes a decision of this magnitude again
without public input; 2) the Board or its successors never turns its back on
the Whitewood Village project during the next 15 year period.
Mr. Warren Van Dell, of 737C Country Green Apartments, said he has heard
talk about FSE's track record. He believes the problem can be solved if FSE's
financial records and their application to HUD are put on display at the
public library so people can take a good look at who they are and where their
money comes from. Commenting on the rent for the units, Mr. Van Dell said a
20 to 25 percent guaranteed subsidy is adequate to service a $340,000 debt at
current market prices. Some of the items mentioned, such as the playground,
can be financed out of that stream of earnings. Mr. Van Dell suggested that
staff talk to people at the bus and transit service to work out an accommoda-
tion to move the bus stop nearer to the facility. Mr. Van Dell asked if the
apartments are energy-efficient and will residents have adequate car insurance.
He said that housing in rural areas is inaccessible to power lines, and it
costs a lot of money to run lines for utilities. Mr. Way interrupted Mr. Van
Dell and asked if what he is saying has anything to do with Whitewood Village
or is he discussing the matter of housing generally throughout the County.
Mr. Van Dell said in addition to Whitewood V~llage, he has heard that 96 other
units are under consideration for this project; that pulling people out of
that housing and moving them into Whitewood Village and then taking those 96
July 8, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 22)
units on, does not make sense. The owners have had adequate time during the
past two years to participate in the program. Mr. Van Dell hopes the Board
will monitor FSEas part of their accounting to see if the money designated
for capital improvements is used for that. Mr. Van Dell commented that there
seems to be a clash between the County and the City on the urban grant from
HUD; that the Board should take counsel to see if the City/County Revenue
Sharing Agreement is living up to its proposed potential.
Ms. Marsha Bertholf, a resident of Oak Forest, said 'she came to speak
about the school issue. Her concerns relate to the effect of the project on
the Greer Elementary School, an open classroom school designed to hold approxi
mately 600 children in equal numbers from Kindergarten through 5th grade. Ms.
Bertholf is concerned about a high density housing project with a potential
for many children situated in a district like Greer. She hopes in the future
the Board looks carefully at the school system where high density housing is
to be located as part of the Board's consideration.
Mr. Andrew Woods, who lives in Oak Forest, said he received a letter from
Mr. Bob Crytzer saying that at the next meeting of the Oak Forest Residents
Association, they plan to discuss ways to welcome WhitewoOd Village residents
into the neighborhood. As neighborhood residents they will be able to demon-
strate to the new tenants a welcome and caring that will offset the stigma
attached to the project by publicity. Residents are counting on the Board to
backup the administrative and financial aspects of the project. The letter
lets new residents know that neighborhood people are concerned more with human
values than with property values. Mr. Woods is convinced once "it comes out
in the wash," the project will be a success.
Ms. Kate Sandusky, a member of the Albemarle HousingiCoalition, said she
is not authorized to speak for anyone. Over the past 15 to 20 years she has
been interested in County housing problems. Progress has been slow because
there have been a lot of roadblocks. In last two years, Mr. Bradshaw and
others have been looking at sites for scattered site housing for low-income
people and relatively few sites have been found that can be developed. Ms.
Sandusky is glad to see a number of people will be helped by this project.
She appreciates the concerns expressed by Oak Forest residents; it is great
they will be neighborly and will cooperate. Ms. Sandusky hopes the project
will be a big success.
Mr. Roger Bertholf, a resident of Oak Forest, said it is to be expected i
the lifetime of a newsworthy event, pertinent issues become confused in a
manner often emphasizing emotional arguments at the expense of fundamental
concerns. As a resident of Oak Forest, Mr. Bertholf can assure any present or
future residents of Whitewood Village that the residents of Oak Forest have no
reservations about their prospective neighbors; no concern has been expressed
or implied. The concerns of Oak Forest residents address the fundamental
questions of governmental propriety, the effective use of tax dollars, and the
future of Whitewood Village apartments. The Albemarle County Board of Super-
visors voted five to one in favor of changing a long-standing policy of
scattered-site housing to accommodate a proposal by Mr. Agnor, to include the
Whitewood Village apartments in the Section 8 program. The location was not
disclosed and would not be publicly known until the contract for the project
had been signed by Mr. Agnor in late spring. The Board was advised by counsel
that such authorization was within legal restrictions, so the County is now
bound to the terms of the contract. Residents of the County did not have an
opportunity for substantive input regarding where and with~whom the contract
was being negotiated. Mr. Agnor noted in a presentation to the Board on
February 18, "The owners of this complex do not think the rehabilitation of
this complex will cause a turnover in clientele because without surveying the
income of existing occupants, they [FSE] believe a large percentage of current
occupants will qualify for Section 8 rental assistance." Mr. Bertholf com-
mented that the large percentage is about ten percent. After the purchase of
the property, FSE raised rent $50 per month in 1986 and another $125 per month
when the contract was secured. In a notice of formal rentlincrease dated
April 13, 1987, FSE included a note "If you will be considering other housing,
we want you to be aware of the fact that we will cooperate 'with you to the
greatest extent possible and will not insist that you remain in occupancy
until the termination date of your lease." Occupants had to move out or pay a
rent of 120 percent of fair market value allowed under Section 8; all but
three qualifying tenants left because of an intolerable rent increase on
July 8, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 23)
poorly maintained apartments. Occupants had no choice, thus emptying White-
wood Village to 30 percent occupancy. Mr. Bertholf said they had copies of
letters sent to FSE by residents protesting the increase in rent and pleading
for repairs~ Mr. John Potvin, FSE president, responded that FSE had been
planning improvements and the tenants would be pleased with them. Mr.
Bertholf said no one was pleased with the state of repair. The second group
of victims are residents of Whitewood Village who qualified for rental assist-
ance and stayed; their financial situation will not be improved because even
as Mr. Agnor noted the rental assistance will only pay for the increased rent.
The program primarily absorbs the increase in rent rather than reducing the
burden on tenants; FSE's pockets are being lined with taxpayer dollars to
allow them to charge $485 for an apartment that does not provide heat, cable,
and which does not compare with other complexes in the area with respect to
facilities or appearance; residents have witnessed deterioration under FSE
ownership. Whitewood Village is considered an eyesore; residents of Whitewood
Village who have stayed have been sold a bill of goods that includes dispropor-
tionate rent, substandard facilities, and unresponsive management, and this
bill of goods was endorsed by this Board. The third group of victims are the
prospective tenants. Low-income residents must be guaranteed the same access
to housing as all citizens of Albemarle County; it is their right and its
assurance is the purpose of rent subsidy programs. Rent is the only leverage
that insures a landlord will pay proper attention to maintenance. The con-
tract specifies a subsidy for virtually ever~ unit in the complex, guaranteed
for 15 years. If there is no shortage of qualifying tenants, then FSE has
guaranteed 100 percent occupancy with rent at 120 percent fair market value
for each unit for 15 years. If Whitewood Village becomes an embarrassment to
Albemarle County, and the stage has been carelessly set for this to happen, it
will not be a result of prospective tenants, but a predictable product of the
failure of elected officials to anticipate the consequences of a decision made
in haste under threat of losing funds. Oak Forest residents have been involved
in the planning of recreational facilities, adequate lighting, safety for
children walking along Whitewood Road/Hydraulic Road, and preservation of the
environment. Residents anticipate the influx of new residents and hope new
residents share their concerns. Mr. Bertholf's hope is that residents of Oak
Forest and Whitewood Village can overcome the compromise circumstance into
which they have all been thrust.
With no one else coming forward to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Lindstrom said he was not at the meeting last week, and does not know
what was discussed. With the exception of everyone but Mr. Bertholf, most of
what has been said did not provide him with any information, but it has caused
him a great deal of concern. Mr. Bertholf said some things which concerned
Mr. Lindstrom about representations made to the Board respecting the qualifi-
cations of tenants for the subsidy who exist.in an unsubsidized project.
Staff provided one set of facts and statements, and Mr. Bertholf made other
statements. Having participated actively in making the decision, in actively
supporting it, and still supporting it in principle, Mr. Lindstrom thinks the
public should know what the Board knows, what they had before them, and what
Mr. Lindstrom felt was sufficient basis for the decision. First,~the applica-
tion involved existing properly zoned land for the use. The Board had not
been informed where the specific site was located, but knew the project was
not for a vacant parcel, or a site still to be developed. Second, the Board
was told a significant number of existing residents in the complex were at an
income level qualifying them for a subsidy; it did not appear there would be a
substantial turnover. Third, the information provided indicated the housing
grant would be used to upgrade currently deteriorating, dilapidated structures.
Four, the Board is acutely aware there are a !substantial number of poor
citizens in the County who cannot q~alify for the AHIP project because they do
not own homes. The scattered-site housing approach, which was unanimously
supported, was not working with this. particular grant. The Board discussed
with staff why it was not working, and what Could be done to make it work.
Mr. Lindstrom was personally besieged by activists in the community concerned
about housing and agreed to an addit~ional staff person to facilitate the
search for implementation of the subsidy through scattered-site housing. The
Board was confronted with the fact that a substantial grant for subsidies was
available, very little had been used., and what was not used would be lost to
the County. This was a real concern to all the Board members because the
program was not a continuing program: with the Federal government. There are
very few units available in the country and Albemarle County had been made
July 8, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 24)
beneficiary ~g some of those units. If the units were not used, the grant
would be gone permanently unless there was a major change in Federal policy.
All things combined; zoning and land use matters were already addressed by the
fact the proposed site is an existing structure consistent with existing land
use, it appeared to Mr. Lindstrom that this was sufficient to overcome the
Board's policy of insisting on scattered-site housing. Mr. Lindstrom still
supports the policy change; it is important and necessary; the facts were
reasonable enough to make the decision. There was some discussion by the
Board about legal procedures concerning the contractual process in that it was
felt it would be inappropriate for the Board to know specifically where the
site is located. Mr. Lindstrom's concern is that, historically, discrimi-
nation has been associated with subsidized housing. It seemed to him, per-
sonally, if the decision was not made on neutral principles it would be
difficult for the Board not to get entangled in a potentially discriminatory
type of decision. Mr. Lindstrom was concerned about the information the Board
was provided as to qualifications of people in the project. Even if the
information is erroneous, it does not obviate the Board's responsibility to
provide housing in appropriate locations. Along with this is the responsi-
bility to provide, through public funding, if necessary, facilities necessary
for this kind of density. The area is growing rapidly, and the Board needs to
look at providing recreational facilities.
Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. St. John if it would have been legal or appropriate
for the Board to have had information about the prospective developer of the
complex. If so, what kind of legal decisions could the Board have made
concerning, that project had the Board had a history of the owner. She under-
stands it is a private developer, and it is not public ho6sing, but private
housing. Mrs. Cooke said she does not understand the legal ramifications of
that. ~
Mr. St. John replied that what was done by the Board~met legal require-
ments; there is no prohibition on the Board's going further than it actually
went; it would have been legal if the Board had wanted to ~old a public
hearing so as to inquire into the qualifications and back~round/history of the
landlord. However, had the Board done this, the Board would have had to be~
very careful if it took the position that the program is a good program. If
the Board does not think this type of housing belongs in this area, or does
not think this particular landlord is one the Board wants to pick to develop
the project, this would cause concern because the funding ~for the project is
not County money; the County's only involvement is administration. If the
lenders of the money are satisfied as to the developer's financial stability,
it can be argued that the County does not stand to lose or gain by virtue of
what happens in that area. If the landlord can satisfy his financial sources,
Mr. St. John does not think there is ground for the Board to it does not
believe the developer will be able to pay the money back or make a go of the
project. Concerning the landlord's record in maintaining the building, if the
Board said it would not approve the program, that the Board was unwilling to
become administrators of the program because of anticipated improper mainten-
ance on the buildings, the Board would actually be saying it would rather have
the building continue to deteriorate because it does not trust the developer
to do the job right. This would be difficult to defend because it does not
make legal sense. Further, the Board could not refuse to participate in the
program on the grounds that transportation is inadequate or a high density
multi-family dwelling does not belong at the site. There is a building there
already and it is zoned for high density use. Poor people!do not create more
density than rich people if it is the same number of apartments, nor do they
create more need for transportation, nor more school children; the law does
not allow the Board to presume that poor people do. The Board would have been
on shaky ground had it gotten this information and then refused to approve the
site once the policy had been changed. If there had been a public hearing on
a specific site, the purpose of the hearing could only hav~ been to inform
citizens and keep open the lines of communication, which would have been
legal. However, if in response to an outcry or uprising of opposition, and
based on those arguments the Board had rejected the application, the Board
would have been in an indefensible legal position particularly under the
Federal Fair Housing Act. ~
Mr. Lindstrom said if the Board had held a public hea~ing, many of the
issues relevant to the public would not have been a legitimate basis upon
which to make a decision. Mr. St. John said that is true.
July 8, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 25)
Mr. Way asked Mr. Horne to advise what the County government can do in
terms of inspections at the site and in making recommendations to management.
Mr. Horne replied that once the units are occupied the County's Housing Office
will be the administering agent and will handle tenants in the ongoing program;
these Mod Rehab units will be administered identically to the existing Section
8 rental subsidy units; with an annual inspection and an inspection when a
tenant moves in or out. This will be done by a full-time inspector who is
dedicated solely to inspecting subsidized housing units under housing quality
standards set by the Federal government.
Mr. Way asked Mr. Horne to define housing quality. Mr. Home replied
that housing quality standards are set by the Federal government relating to
health and safety items in terms of the operation of the unit, such as adequate
running water and that electrical connections are safe. In addition, the
County can require that any improvements made be maintained in an adequate and
safe condition. If during the process the County feels management is not
taking the action necessary to maintain housing quality standards, or not
maintaining the viability of the improvements paid for, the County has the
authority to require that the units be brought up to standards or the rent
subsidy will be lost. Included in the long-term calculation of the resources
necessary to maintain and manage the program is an amount of money necessary
and considered adequate, in the County's and HUD's estimation to approve the
rents, to provide the funds for ongoing maintenance and administration of the
units; the money is built into the program.
Mr. Way commented that one of the problems facing the Board is that since
the property had already been zoned and built before the current ordinance
requirements went into effect, the Board doer not have the authority or the
right to insist that the landlord put in a playground. Ail the Board can do
is to suggest this and hope management will respond positively to the need.
Mr. Way said he agreed with Mr. Lindstrom regarding the Board's responsibility
to provide the services that the complex will require.
Mr. Home said the owners have been proyided with specifications for an
acceptable playground structure under the County's current guidelines. Also
discussed with management is the need to fili in some of the areas that have
not already been fenced. Based on these discussions, Mr. Horne's belief is
that this will be done. Mr. Home agrees with Mr. Way in that the County
cannot require this. It is a matter of identifying what needs to be done,
where it should be placed, and what the costiwill be.
Mr. Way said again he appreciates Mr. Lindstrom's summary of the reasons
why the Board acted in the way it did. Personally, he believes there would
have been some value in having a public hearing. However, Mr. Way feels
legally the Board could have made the site more specific, but does not think
what he would have heard would have changed his final decision of supporting
the project. Mr. Way said he appreciates th~ contact he has had from citizens
of Oak Forest, and the Board appreciates the!positive way the new neighbors
will be welcomed into the area.
Mr. Bowie said he believes at the time of the vote he cast his vote
properly. He now believes there is potential for County control since it is
not strictly private property on the open market. Mr. Bowie thanked the
citizens and organizers who came forward to speak.
Mrs. Cooke expressed her thanks to the citizens who came and gave their
honest appraisal of the situation. She said there are other very large
complexes that can be affected because of the policy change. She was con-
cerned about it at the time, and that was the reason she voted against it.
Mrs. Cooke did not need to know a site specific because she did not agree with
the extension of cluster housing. She will recommend to the Board that it
consider reversing the policy change because most of the complexes that could
be affected by the change are all concentrated in one particular location.
She said it is grossly unfair to the residents of the Charlottesville Magis-
terial District to be constantly bombarded and be in constant threat of this
kind of cluster housing. She feels that to continue this policy and to
continue a concentration of this kind of housing in one particular area in the
County is not the route the County should take. Mrs. Cooke again asked the
Board to consider a reversal of the cluster housing extension policy, if not
today, then within the very near future.
July 8, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 26)
Mr. Lindstrom said he would not personally support the complete reversal
of the policy because scattered-site housing has not worked. It is more
important to provide housing to people who need it. He would be willing to
consider guidelines developed by staff for the scattering of clustered housing
so the County does not end up with a concentration of clustered, subsidized
housing units in one small area. Within the urban area and in growth communi-
ties, any application should be considered along with its proximity to other
clustered units that have been approved. Mr. Lindstrom does not know what the
standards should be, but it should be done in a neutral way to avoid any
discriminatory overtones. This would be legitimate criteria for the evalua-
tion of future applications.
Mrs. Cooke said Mr. Lindstrom's suggestion has a great deal of merit.
The Board must consider that in the urban area it is far behind in providing
recreational facilities and grossly behind in providing services such as trash
collection and public transportation. Until such time as~the Board addresses
the the needs of services and recreation, it cannot continue to be vulnerable
to clustered housing in the urban area, particularly in the area being dis-
cussed. The Board should be very careful as to what it concentrates in an
area until the County is capable and willing to provide the services needed in
highly concentrated urban areas. This needs to be lookedlat and language
provided in whatever staff develops for consideration in altering the policy
of scattered and clustered site housing.
Mr. Way asked if the Board should have a work sessio~ on the subject.
Mrs. Cooke replied that she would prefer that the staff develop language first
and then schedule a workshop after the Board has had an opportunity to look at
those recommendations. Mr. Agnor said he was not sure exactly what staff is
expected to do. He believes the Board is getting into land use and density
matters that are covered in the Comprehensive Plan, with related services in
urban area development. The Board is not addressing the economics of the
occupants or the socioeconomic structure of the area or of· the community. Mr.
Agnor said staff will make an attempt to provide the infomation requested,
along with guidelines for rehabilitated or clustered housihg that is not
concentrated in one given area but is spread out, in an area where densely
populated housing is allowed by the County's Zoning Ordina~nce and Comprehen-
sive Plan.
Mrs. Cooke said people who have to avail themselves Of subsidized housing
cannot afford a lot of amenities that other people can. If the Board is
creating concentrated subsidized housing and dense population within a given
area, it has to be able to assume the responsibility for supporting the people
put in that area. This is something the Board must think about, come to grips
with, and manage in some fashion that is responsible.
Mr. St. John asked Mrs. Cooke if when she uses the term clustered hous-
ing, is she talking about guidelines for subsidized housing since clustered
housing can be subsidized or nonsubsidized. The County's Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan already prescribe where clusters are supposed to go. Mrs.
Cooke replied that the subject is subsidized housing.
Mr. Way said he does not know if the suggestions Mr. Ackerman made during
his presentation are feasible or not. He suggested that Mr. Ackerman follow
through on these suggestions with the Planning Department.
Mr. Way stated if the Board takes no action that willlindicate that the
current plan for the signing and so forth of contracts will go through; if no
motion is made, the Board will assume that things will carry on as originally
planned. The discussion ended at this time.
Agenda Item No. 11. Ivy Landfill Utility Easement. Memorandum from Mr.
Guy B. Agnor, Jr., dated July 2, 1987, follows:
"The County and City have requested Virginia Power to supply electric
service to a pump at the Ivy Landfill which is a part of a recently
installed leachate collection system. To provide the service, a
standard utility easement must be executed by the County and City
that allows Virginia Power to operate and maintain the power line
serving the pump.
July 8, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 27)
Authorization for the Chairman to execute the easement is requested,
and recommended. A copy of the easement and plat are available, if
the Board desires to examine them."
In the absence of the Chairman, motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded
by Mr. Lindstrom, to authorize the Vice-Chairman to sign the agreement with
Virginia Electric and Power Company, dated June 26, 1987, as presented at this
meeting and attached thereto a copy of Plat No. 81870098. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher and Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Board and the Public.
Mr. Way showed the Board members a Certificate from the Virginia
Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution, that recog-
nizes Albemarle County, Virginia, as a bicentennial community honoring the
200th Anniversary of the United States Constitution. Mr. Way asked Mr. Agnor
to see that the Certificate is properly installed in a suitable location for
viewing.
Mr. Way noted that a Certificate of Appreciation had been prepared for
Mrs. Helen Wieneke who served eight years as a member of the Regional Library
Board. He will present it to her at a ceremony being held at the Scottsville
Library in her honor.
Mr. Bowie said the Building and Properties Committee has met and author-
ized the staff to place an advertisement in the newspaper soliciting proposals
for the use of the Greenwood School property. September 1 is the deadline, so
there will be nothing to review in the very near future.
Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn. With no further business to come before
the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:34 P.M.
48
[