1987-07-15July 15, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on July 15, 1987, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs.
Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr'., County Executive; Mr. George R.
St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. John T. P. Home, Director of Planning and
Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
7:33 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and
seconded by Mr. Way, to accept the items on the Consent Agenda as information.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
Item No. 4.1. County Executive's Financial Report for May, 1987, was
received in accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-602.
Item No. 4.2. Memorandum from Judy S. Gough, Administrative Assistant,
dated June 30, 1987, listing refunds on business and professional licenses,
real estate and personal property taxes, between November 1, 1986, and ending
June 30, 1987, received as information.
Item No. 4.3. Police Department's Quarterly and Semi-Annual Crime
Statistics. The following memorandum from Chief Frank W. Johnstone, dated
July 9, 1987, was received as information.
"Attached are the quarterly statistics for the April June 1987
period compared with the same period in. 1986 and the semi-annual
statistics (January - 3une 1987) compared with the comparable period
fOr 1986.
Quarterly report: The County continues to experience a small
decrease (-2.9%) in the number of serious crimes reported. This
follows the downward trend earlier noted for the first quarter of the
year.
Crimes against persons were down 31%, although we experienced a
homicide, 2 rapes and a robbery during the quarter. The most signif-
icant decrease was in aggravated assaults, down 50%.
Crimes against property were down 1.7% ~or the period. However, we
are still showing an increase in the burglary rate with a comparable
decrease in the larceny rate. The decrease in larcenies was antici-
pated because we had a very large numbe~ of thefts from automobiles
during the comparable period in the pri~r year. The increase in the
burglary rate, while it has not reached the very large numbers of two
years ago, is a cause for concern and attention in the department.
While the percentage change in crime categories is expeCted to
fluctuate from period to period, it is always a matter of concern
when certain categories have a 3-6 month rate of increase.
July 15, 1987 (Regular Meetin
(Page 2
Semi-Annual report: The number of crimes against persons for the
comparable six month period remained exactly the same. We had two
more homicides, two more robberies and the same number of rapes for
the period. Again, the biggest decrease in reports was in the area
of aggravated assaults.
Crimes against property continued t~ decline (-4.6%). The antici-
pated decrease in the number of larceny reports was Offset by the
unanticipated, and continuing, increase in burglaries cited above.
That is a 26% increase for the period. The increases are primarily
in daytime residential burglaries.
While the reporting rate for indexed crimes is decreasing, the calls
for service for less serious crimes and other service-related activi-
ties has increased from 8,138 calls in 1986 to 8,851 in 1987. This
is an increase of 8.7%.
The number of warrants served during the comparable period shows a
4.8% decrease (1,956 in 1986, 1,863 in 1987).
Records Automation: The Traffic Management Information System went
on line in February 1987 and the Police Management Information System
(Shields) went on line about six weeks later. Ail of the Service
Division personnel have been trained in their data entry and records
management responsibilities and entry for 1987 data is current.
We are continuing to work to enter data from 1986 and 1985 so that
the system will be more valuable to us sooner. We anticipate com-
pleting this entry of prior year data by the end of the calendar
year. This will then give the department three years of comparable
data and assist greatly in budget preparation, crime analysis,
traffic/accident analysis, evaluation of officer productivity, etc.
While this is a relatively ambitious undertaking we feel confident
that it will be completed on schedule."
Item No. 4.4. A letter dated June 10, 1987, from John A. Dezio, attorney
for Guenther Hawranke requesting that Mr. Hawranke's Mount Warren property be
withdrawn from the Hatton/Totier Creek Agricultural/Forestal District.
Item No. 4.5. A copy of Planning Commission minutes ~for June 23 and
July 7, 1987, received as information.
Item No. 4.6. Notice of Appeal: Commonwealth's Attorney to State
Compensation Board, Notice of Appeal in re: decision of the State Compensa-
tion Board regarding salaries, expenses and other allowances for the Office of
the Commonwealth's Attorney for the County of Albemarle for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1988, was received.
Agenda Item No. 5. Appeal: Covesville Post Office Site Plan (deferred
from June 10, 1987).
Mr. Fisher stated this matter was deferred from the June 10 meeting in
order to determine whether or not there were other possibilities for location
of the post office. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Horne for a report.
Mr. Home reminded the Board that this was brought to the Board's atten-
tion at an earlier meeting as an appeal, not as a Planning Commission decision
on a site plan, but of a decision based on Section 15.1-456 of the Code of
Virginia under which the Commission is charged in determining that the loca-
tion and general character of a public improvement is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Horne stated the issue is one of relocation of the
existing post office which is now located near the center of the Covesville
area in a mobile home. The proposal is to relocate the facility to an area
north of the central area of Covesville on another site. Prior to discussing
July 15, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 3)
the actual merits of the site plan itself, the Commission decided to make a
determination under Section 15.1-456, and determined that this new location
was not consistent with the intent or the general character of the Comprehen-
sive Plan. Therefore, the Planning Commission never discussed the actual site
plan. That decision was appealed to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Home stated that at the June 10 meeting the staff was instructed to
analyze the existing site and any other sites that could be identified in the
vicinity. Staff met and discussed the existing site. Staff is not aware of
any other sites that may be available. Staff is aware that Mr. Small, who is
proposing the new site, has a contract with ~he post office, has looked
extensively in the area, and, as far as the Planning Commission is aware, has
not found any alternate sites. The Planning~staff has met with Mr. Donald
Mawyer, the owner of the site where the existing store and existing post
office are located, met with the Zoning Administrator, and the Health Depart-
ment, trying to exhaust all possibilities at that site first. Mr. Horne
stated there was a clear indication from the Commission and the Board of
Supervisors to keep the post office facility~at the existing site if
physically possible.
Mr. Horne stated the Zoning Administrator, in interpreting the ordinance,
has determined the ordinance would allow replacement of the existing mobile
home at the existing site with a permanent structure as long as the structure
was comparable in size and continues to serve as the post office. Drainfields
would need to be placed in the area for any mew structure, but cannot be
placed on the site, the nearest available site is on property to the rear.
The staff understands from discussions with Mr. Mawyer, that he does have
verbal approval at this point from the owner of that property to place drain-
fields there. Based on that, the Planning s~aff had the Health Department do
soil tests, and the Health Department has made verbal statements that adequate
areas have been located for installation of primary and backup drainfield
sites.
Mr. Home stated that neither he nor any member of his staff has spoken
directly to a representative of the post office, so do not know if they are
interested in staying at the existing site.
Mr. Way asked Mr. Horne if he had seen the letter from the attorney for
Mr. J. D. Johnson offering that land. Mr. Home replied he was not familiar
with the letter.
At this time, Mr. Fisher offered those present an opportunity to comment
on the proposal.
Mr. Small stated that the contract for the post office was awarded two
years ago. If the site is to be moved, it would be a good idea to check with
someone from the post office to see what they know about the move.
Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Small has a firmlcontract for construction of the
building. Mr. Small said yes. He thinks that if this site plan is turned
down, the post office may not build in this a~ea again.
Mr. Mawyer stated he lives on the property being discussed. He stated
the Post Office sent him a letter stating that there is no intention of
closing this post office at this time or at any time in the near future. He
mentioned the letter written by Mr. Johnson's attorney giving permission to
pursue an easement on his property. He thinks there is no problem, and he
certainly has no qualms about tearing down the barn to allow use of the site.
Mr. Fisher said the Planning Commission and the Board are only trying to
further the interests of the village of Covesville. The area was damaged
heavily some years ago when Route 29 was widened and the largest church had to
be relocated on Route 633. He stated that the Board has been put in the
position of favoring one property owner who would like to be the landlord over
another property owner. He suggested that rather than foreclosing any
options, it might be best to let things ripen and see what happens. Mr.
Fisher said the issue before this Board is whether or not the site plan that
was presented conforms with the Comprehensive Plan of the County. That is
really a different question than whether there are other options.
July 15, 1987 (Regular Meetin~
(Page 4)
Mr. Way agreed with Mr. Fisher. He said it now seams that there are two
possible sites for the post office. He said that decision is going to have to
be made by the post office and is totally beyond the control of this Board.
He stated his feeling would be the same as Mr. Fisher's to just continue this
appeal until there is an indication from the post office as to whether or not
they would be interested in putting a building at the present site.
Mr. Mawyer came back and stated that the post office would not accept a
bid from him due to the fact that it is under obligation to Mr. Small. They
will not accept a bid until the end of Mr. Small's period of time, at which
time they can accept bids from the both of them. Mr. Fisher asked him when
the time period ends. Mr. Mawyer said the post office people would not give
him a deadline.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John for an opinion on the question. Mr. St.
John stated that it is not a legal question. The only question before the
Board is whether or not to overrule the Planning Commission's decision that
the new site is not in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. He said unless
Board does that, then the site plan cannot be approved for the new location.
Mr. Fisher said if the Board supports the Planning Commission's opinion the
post office can start over with negotiations and try to find a suitable site.
Mr. St. John said the only risk is that the post office might close the
facility at Covesville, and citizens would have to use the facility at North
Garden.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Horne if the Planning staff might be able to find
more information regarding the' inclination of the post office to pull out, or
has that been explored as far as it is going to be explored. Mr. Horne stated
staff had talked to the post office, but had not been able to ascertain that
information. (NOTE: Mr. St. John left the meeting at 8:00 P.M.)
Mr. Lindstrom stated his feeling that it is more desirable for the post
office to stay where it is in terms of that village; losing the post office
altogether would be the worse thing that could happen. This Board does not
know what will happen if it lets the Planning Commission decision stand.
Mr. Way stated he was aware of the tenacity of the citizens of Covesville
to maintain the post office, and he believed if there is a decision by the
post office department to do away with that post office, there would be a
tremendous outcry and he thinks the citizens would be able to succeed in
keeping it in the community. He stated that obviously it is going to take a
while for a decision, so there is not going to be any post office change for a
while. He said, in his personal opinion, that would be the best route to
pursue.
Mr. Fisher asked if there was any motion. Hearing no motion, Mr. Fisher
ruled that the decision of the Planning Commission stands.
Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing: Capital Improvement Program for
Albemarle County for the period 1987-88/1991-92 and budget for 1987-88.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 6, 1987.)
Mr. Agnor's memo attached to the Capital Improvement Program follows:
"Forwarded herewith are the revised summaries of projects and reve-
nues for the 1987-92 CIP which reflect the changes made at your work
session. Please note the total five year project estimates are
$19.51 million, plus a total tamporary financing cost of $0.76
million, making a grand total of project costs estimated to be $20.27
million. Total resources for the five-year period are estimated to
be $20.04 million.
Please note also that temporary loans are shown in the first four
years of the program to accommodate peaks and valleys in the flow of
resources. Once the CIP is adopted, a cash flow anal.ysis for 1987-88
will be made which will project anticipated disbursements for each
project and determine if the projected $590,000 temporary loan that
is shown as a resource, will be needed."
July 15, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 5)
(Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 8:10 P.M.)
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor to summarize the Capital Improvement Program
for the Board and the public.
Mr. Agnor explained that the process of amending the Capital Improvement
Program is a six-month process. He said there have been a number of work
sessions by the Planning Commission and the School Board; public hearings by
both of those departments and work sessions by the Board of Supervisors.
Tonight's purpose is to hear public comments on the Board's recommended five-
year plan. Mr. Agnor outlined the plan, first defining revenue sources, then
the plan itself, item by item.
At this point, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Bob Crytzer of 125 Oak Forest Circle, President of the Oak Forest
Neighborhood Association, addressed the Board and presented the Oak Forest
Goals for Improvements in the Hydraulic Road Area, which included: support
for the installation of streetlights along Whitewood Road, expenditure of
funds to install an asphalt pathway along the School Board's property on
Whitewood Road, a call for a new study by the County Planning staff and the
Highway Department to improve safety for children and adults crossing
Hydraulic Road at the Whitewood/Lambs Road intersection, and for further
development of the School Board property across from Oak Forest and Whitewood
Village on both a temporary and long-term basis. A copy of the full text of
the Goals is on file in the Clerk's office. ~Mr. Way asked how large a tract
of land is involved. Mr. Crytzer replied he,has been told it is about 38
acres.
Mr. Lindstrom said he has spoken with a member of the County Planning
Commission about creating a recreational area on the School Board's property.
This member of the Planning Commission did not feel that all of the property
should be converted permanently, but that a Substantial part of the property
might be considered for a permanent recreation area and suggested that the
Board speak with the School Board to see how the property could be developed
further. Mr. Lindstrom said this is a valuable piece of land, strategically
located in a high density area.
Mrs. Ilene C. Rutschow representing the Charlottesville Tennis Patrons
Association, Inc., and tennis parents of Albemarle High School, made a presen-
tation concerning the Parks and Recreation section of the CIP. Mrs. Rutschow
said there is a need for additional courts at Albemarle High School because
the shortage requires the Ablemarle High SchOol tennis team to play and
practice until late at night. This shortage of practice space prevented
Albemarle High School from forming a junior varsity team. Members of the
public often must wait hours for a lighted court because of the shortage of
courts. She said that comparable sized counties have more tennis courts per
capita than Albemarle County. A full copy of the text of the presentation is
on file in the Clerk's office. Mr. Fisher said that there are eight tennis
courts in the plan for the new Rivanna Park, but the Board will talk more
about what ought to be done as far as Albemarle High School is concerned.
Mr. Fisher thanked Mrs. Rutschow for her statement and asked those
present in support to stand; eight people stood in support.
Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, President of the Parent-Teacher Organization at
Rose Hill Elementary School, spoke to urge the Board's support for the adop-
tion of Project 6 in the Educational portion of the CIP, the replacement
facility for the existing Rose Hill Elementary School. He said the facility
is shown to be constructed in fiscal year 1990-91, with preliminary work to
begin in two years leading into that project. He said that while the PTO
supports the replacement of the existing facility, they are concerned that
renovations aimed at achieving parity for the students and faculty are being
replaced by the replacement facility. He said an earlier document from the
School Board seemed to key the replacement facility to the prospect of growth
in the southern urban area of the County. The parents fear that should the
study show the growth rate is not as anticipated, the project will be pushed
back to wait for that growth to be achieved. During that period of time, the
students attending Rose Hill School would continue to attend the school
July 15, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 6)
without the parity improvements the parents feel are vital. Even under the
proposed plan, this will be the last school to have air conditioned classrooms
and the benefit of a gymnasium for physical education. He encouraged the
Board to support the plan for the replacement of the Rose Hill facility on its
own merits, but not to let the renovations be delayed by what is found to
happen in terms of growth in the southern urban area.
Mr. Way said he shared Mr. Rittenhouse's concern. Consideration was
being given to make renovation plans immediately at Rose Hill, but due to the
fact there probably would be a new school, that is why they decided not to go
ahead with the renovation plans. He feels very committed to all of the
projects, particularly in terms of parity, that have been presented. He looks
at the projects as a package, to be completed, hopefully, within the next five
years.
Mr. Rittenhouse thanked Mr. Way for his support and added that the
parents at Rose Hill Elementary School support the concept of parity through-
out the County; they are not anxious to get their "piece of the pie" and are
willing to wait a reasonable length of time as indicated in the Plan. Rose
Hill seems to be down on the list pretty far but the parents are not terribly
disturbed by that. What disturbs them is the possibilitythat the project
might continue to be pushed down the list.
Mr. Paul Coleman, President of the Southern Albemarle Development Associ-
ation, addressed the Board concerning the Association's desire to have more
sewer and water utilities in Scottsville. He said this southern section of
Albemarle County has been designated as a growth area without the necessary
utilities to support this growth. He said there is an elementary schoolwith
too many vacant seats; they adjoin three other counties (Fluvanna, Buckingham,
and Nelson), who consider this section of southern Albemarle as their trade
area. He said the Association was formed 18 months ago; it has had regular
monthly meetings since January of 1987; the group has met~with Rev. Peter Way,
Mr. Bill Brent of the Albemarle County Service Authority, and with Mr. Horne.
They feel that without some attention and assistance from the Board, the area
will be unable to survive. Everyone involved with the Association desires to
see the area develop and grow, but feels it has been neglected for so long
that desires for growth are surpassed by desires to exist. Mr. Coleman then
introduced Mr. Gordon Anderson.
Mr. Anderson stated he lives on Route 726, just outside the town limits
of Scottsville. He addressed the Board regarding utilityservice in Scotts-
ville and presented a statement, a copy of which is on file in the Clerk's
office. In his statement, Mr. Anderson reminded the Board that Scottsville
was designated a growth area in the 1971 Comprehensive Plan. Yet growth in
the area has been much slower than planned, a phenomenon Mr. Anderson
attributes to the shortage of sanitary sewer and fresh water supply systems
this area. Mr. Anderson said that this shortage affects both private citizens
and businesses in Scottsville. At least one-third of Scottsville's citizens
have experienced septic system problems owing either to poor percolation or
small lot sizes. The shortage of sewer and water lines also causes problems
for Scottsville area businesses. The owners of the shopping center have plans
to expand their center, but cannot, due to their limited septic system. A
Scottsville automobile dealer cannot use the expensive car wash equipment he
owns because he has only enough water to wash two cars a day.
Mr. Anderson closed his presentation by urging the Board to assign high
priority to providing utility service to the Scottsville area, both to protect
public health and to foster the controlled growth envisioned by the Albemarle
County Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Fisher said Mr. Anderson makes it sound like Scottsville does not
have any water and sewer service, but Scottsville actually has more water and
sewer per capita than 98 percent of the County. He said Mr. Anderson was
talking about extending water and sewer lines to serve businesses, but the
rest of the people in the County have paid to extend those water and sewer
lines to their businesses; the County does not do that. ~
July 15, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 7)
Mr. Anderson said he was also talking about 100 residences outside of
the town limits. Mr. Fisher said the County has put a lot of money into the
Totier Creek Reservoir, stating there is lots of good water for the community
of Scottsville. He said if citizens cannot afford to build a water line to
bring these services to where the businesses are, he did not see why the
businesses should come to the taxpayers to ask for that.
Mr. Anderson stated these people are not asking that the County build and
give them a system; they are willing over a period of time to amortize any
financing that would be necessary to accomplish the task, as is being done
with the Crozet collection system.
Mr. Fisher said it took 20 years of the State Health Department saying
the problem in Crozet was a hazard to the drSnking water of the City of
Charlottesville to see that system in place. He asked if anyone was making a
statement that there is a widespread health hazard in Scottsville from sewage
flowing in the streets or that sort of thing. Mr. Anderson replied he would
not make that kind of statement. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Anderson to put the
request in some perspective, noting that everyone else in Albemarle County has
put in their own water and sewer lines.
Mr. Anderson said the need is more dire for the 100 residences in the
area, than it is for the businesses. He cited examples of homes in Stoney
Point Subdivision built in the 1940's on onevquarter acre lots served by
individual septic tanks, with no room for expansion of the systems because of
the small lots.
Mr. Way said these people came tonight at his suggestion because he
thought this would be an appropriate time to present this request. He also
thinks these people should come back when the Board talks about the revision
to the Comprehensive Plan. He feels very strongly that the County designated
growth areas and then sat back and did nothing at all to get growth into them.
He thinks the Scottsville situation is a serious one, noting that over one-
third of the septic systems in the Scottsville area are not working properly.
These people are present to inform the Board of the problem, and to encourage
the Board to do what it can to work with theproper authorities to find monies
to improve the situation which is becoming critical. Some businesses in
Scottsville are unable to think about expanding because of the lack of water
and sewer service. Just because there is a public utility system in place, it
makes sense to expand the system, expecting the people using it to pay for
that expansion.
Mr. Fisher recognized the Mayor of Scottsville, Mr. Raymon Thacker, who
said he is interested in the request because it involves the outlying area of
Scottsville. He said that since the town lost all of the businesses which
moved to the shopping center, the town has not had any funds to do anything
with and they would like to have those businesses back. Mayor Thacker said
the only way to achieve growth is to have adequate utilities, saying if the
Board could do anything to help, it would be ~wonderful.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Thacker if he thought the people wanting water and
sewer services would be willing to pay for the services. Mr. Thacker said he
did not think some of the businesses were financially able to go into a large
expense at this time. He thought if the County could work it out where the
cost could be amortized, some method of repayment could be a worked out.
Mr. Fisher said the Planning Con~nission is looking at the question of how
to encourage growth in all areas of the County where such growth is desired.
However, there is no policy to extend water and sewer lines to individual
homes or businesses now. Mr. Thacker said he realized that, but if there is a
solution to the problem, and the County can look into the matter of funding,
the County's help would be appreciated.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Thacker to put together a list of requests for the
Board to look at with the planning staff and utility people, noting areas of
specific problems. Mr. Fisher said he did not think the Board members are
familiar enough with the problem to know how to respond, but might schedule a
work session to discuss the request. Mr. Thacker said he would be happy to do
that and asked to have it set up at a convenient time.
July 15, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Bowie said there will not be growth without utilities. He suggested,
as a pilot project, putting utilities somewhere and seeing if the growth goes
where it is wanted. He said the principle of the County funding something to
be amortized from developer contributions and future amortization is not new,
along with giving assistance in getting grants. He said that Scottsville has
been designated as a growth area, has the basic infrastructure, is asking for
help, and he would be willing to talk about it.
Mr. Way agreed with Mr. Bowie, noting that the Hivanna Water and Sewer
Authority had plans to expand both the sewer and water system in Scottsville.
He said it has always been set back because of some major emergency in the
urban area and the funds have not been available.
Mr. Anderson said their group had been in touch with'the Farmers Home
Administration district office, and someone was sent to speak with them. He
said there are grants available for which they might qualify. He further
stated the Albemarle County Service Authority is currently a borrower through
the FHA, wherein bond monies can be made available. He said they are not
asking the County to give them any kind of a system, they recognize and are
willing to pay for it.
Mr. Horne said a Planning Commission Subcommittee working on the Compre-
hensive Plan will be meeting on July 28, at 5:30 in the evening, to discuss
the village growth areas. He said it is a public meeting and people would be
welcome to come and listen.
Mr. Anderson asked people in the audience to stand in support and approx~
mately 16 people stood.
With no one else coming forward to speak, the public'hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adopt the
Capital Improvement Program (which is set out in full on the following pages).
Holl was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None
PROJECT
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
TOTAL
PROJECT COUNTY
COST SHARE
ADMINISTRATION AND COU~TR
EDUCATION
POLICE, FIRE, RESCUE AND SAFETY
HIGHWAYS ANDTRANSPORTATION
LIBRARIES
No requests
MISCELLANEOUS
PARKS AND RECREATION
UTILITIES - COUNTY PROJECTS
1,755,237 $ 855,237
17,826,000 17,826,000
1,000,000 1,000,000
47~,250 3~2,000
631,150 631,150
4,~95,66~
2,334,492 2,034,~92
GRAND TOTAL
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
1987/88-1991/92 CAPITAL IMPROV]~JENT PROGRAM
PRIOR
ALLOCA-
TIONS REQUEST
$ 224,000 $ 631,237
3,555,000 1~,271~000
1,000,000 -0-
155,000 187,000
PROPOSED FLrNDING BY FISCAL YEAR
1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-921
$ 256,000 $ 250,237 $ -0- $ 125.,000 $ -0-
2,057,000 3,290,000 3,594,000 4,825,000 505,000
-0- -0- -0- -0- -0-
45,000 56,000 32,000 28,000 $ 26,000
-0- 631,150 89,150
1,31G, 28~ 1,86~,~5 ...... 1,034~2.10
104,100 1,930,392 177,215
$28,516,793 $25,863,521 $6,3~8,387 $19,515,134 $3,658,575
225,000 119,000 79,000 119,000
.... 504,100 .~ 18,.000 2957845 12,200
1,527,177 38t000 155,225 32,775
$5,852,514 $3,801,000 $5,508,070 $69~,975
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
1987/88-1991/92 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT
II.
TOTAL PRIOR
PROJECT COUNTY ALLOCA-
COST SHARE TIONS REQUEST
I. ADMINISTRATION AND COURTS
1. Automation of Court Services $ 25,237 $ 25,237 $ -0- $ 25,237 $ -0-
2. Jail Expansion - Joint 1,200,000 300,000 -0- 300,000 75,000
Security Complex
3. County Office Building:
a. Exterior Renovations 125,000 125,000 -0- 125,000 -O-
b. Interior Renovations 405,000 405,000 224,000 181,000 181,000
Subtotal $ 1,755,237 $ 855,237 $ 224,000 $ 631,237 $ 256,000
EDUCATION
1. Crozet Elementary: 3,088,000 3,088,000 100,000 2,988,000 148,000
Replacement School
2. Albemarle High School:
a. Parking Lot 75,000 75,000 55,000 · 20,000 -0-
b. Facilities Study 10%000 100,000 -0- 100,000 100,000
3. Burley Middle School:
a. Phase I (energy/
PROPOSED FUNDING BY FISCAL YEAR
1987-88 1988-89 1989-90
1990-91 1991-921 PRIORITY
$ 25,237 $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- Necessary
225,000 -0- -0- -0- Urgent
-0- -0- 125,000 -0- Desirable
-0- -0- -0- -0 Urgent
$ 250,237 $ -0- $ 125,000 $ -0-
2,840,000 -0- -0- -0- Urgent
20,000 -0- -0- -0- Necessary
-0- -0- -0- -0- Urgent
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
office/library) 2,200,000 2,200,000 1,900,000 300,000 300,000 -0- -0- -0- -0- Urgent
b. General Improvements 600,000 600,000 -0- 600,000 -0- -0- 25,000 575,000 -0- Necessary
Hol!~mead_Elementary: Z6~,000 ..... 765~O00 -0 ...... 765~000 ........ 0 '....80~000 ...... 685~O00 ..... O ...... O .... Necessary
Roof replacement/Mechanical
Red Hill Elementary:
Roof Replacement
Rose Hill Elementary:
Replacement School
Stony Point Elementary:
Major Renovation
Woodbrook Elementary:
Electrical/Mechanical
YanceyElementary:
Major Renovation
Henley Middle School:
Electrical/Mechanical
Brownsville Elementary:
Electrical/Mechanical
64,000 64,000 -0- 64,000 -0- -0- 64,000 -0- -0- Necessary
4,500,000 4,500,000 -0- 4,500,000 -0- 350,000 -0- 4,150,000 -0- Necessary
1,815,000 1,815,000 -0- 1,815,000 175,000 -0- 1,640,000 -0- -0- Urgent
100,000 100,000 -0- 100,000 -0- -0- -0- 100,000 -0- Desirable
1,300,000 1,300,000 -0- 1,300,000 120,000 -0- 1,180,000 -0- -0- Urgent
85,000 85,000 -0- 85,000 -0- -0- -0- -0- 85,000 Deferrable
165,000 165,000 -0- 165,000 -0- -0- -0- -0- 165,000 Deferrable
PROJECT
III.
IV.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
1987/88-1991-92 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
TOTAL PRIOR
PROJECT COUNTY ALLOCA-
COST SHARE TIONS REgUEST ; 1987-88
12. Greet Elementary: 85,000 85,000 -0- 85,000 -0-
Electrical/Mechanical
13. Jouett Middle School: 85,000 85,000 -0- 85,000 -O-
Electrical/Mechanical
14. Walton Middle School: 85,000 85,000 -0- 85,000 -0-
Electrical/Mechanical
15. Stone Robinson Elementary: 2,714,000 2,714,000 1,500,000 1,214,000 1,214,000
Subtotal $17~826,000 $17,826,000 $3,555,000 $14,271,O00 $2,057,000
POLICE, FIRE, RESCUE AND SAFETY
1. Volunteer Fire Departments 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 -0- -0-
Advance Allocation Program
Subtotal
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION
1. Whitewood/Hydraulic/Road Pathways 45,000
2. Route 678 Relocation
3. Streetlights: 20,000
a. Hydraulic/Lambs/Whitewood 30,000 30,000 -0- 30,000 -0-
b Whitewood.Rd.~ ParkArea 6~000 ....... 6,000 ....... 0 .... ~ 65000 0-
c. Hydraulic/Georgetown Roads 16,000 16,000 -0- 16,000 -0-
1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $1,000,000 $ -0- $ -0-
50,000 50,000 5,000 25,000
302,250 170,000 150,000 20,000
PROPOSED FUNDING BY FISCAL YEAR
1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92]
-0- -0- $ -0- $85,000
-0- -0- -0- 85,000
-0- -0- -0- 85,000
-0- -0- -0- -0-
$3,290,000 $3,594,000 $4,825,000 $505,000
-0- -0- -0- -0-
(To be allocated from Repayment Reserve)_
-o- $ -o- $ -o- $ -o-
20,000 -0-
-0- -0-
d. Hydraulic Rd. & Commonwealth
e. Whitewood Rd. & Greenbrier Dr.
f. Four Seasons Dr. at inter-
section w/Rec Area parking
g. Rio Rd. from Hydraulic to
CrenshawMHP
h. Rio Rd. at Pen Park Rd.
i. Mountainwood Road
16,000 16,000
10,000 10,000
10,000 10,000
8,000 8,000
16,000 16,000
10,000 10,000
Subtotal $ 474,250 $ 342,000
LIBRARIES
No requests
30,000 -0-
'~'6,O00= -0-
-0- 16,000
-0- 16,000 -0- -0- 16,000
-0- 10,000 -0- -0- -0-
-0- 10,000 -0- -0- -0-
-0- 8,000 -0- -0- -0-
-0- 16,000 -0- -0- -0-
-0- 10~000 -0- -0- -0-
$ 155,000 $
187,000
45,000 $ 56,000 $ 32,000 $
-0- -0-
-0- -0-
-0- -0-
-0- : ~0-
-0- -0-
-0- -0-
10,000 -0- -
10,000 -0-
8,000 -0-
-0- 16,000
-0- 10,000
28,000 $ 26,000
PRIORITY
Deferrable
Deferrable
Deferrable
Urgent
Urgent
Urgent
Urgent
Necessary
Necessary
Necessary
Necessary
Desirable
Desirable
Desirable
Deferrable
Deferrable
PROJECT
VI. MISCELLANEOUS
County Computer Upgrading
Subtotal
TOTAL
PROJECT
COST
COUNTY
SHARE
631,150 631,150
$ 631,150 $ 631,150
VII. PARKS ANDRECREATION
1. Rivanna Park (formerly City- 2,665,780 1,365,845
County Urban Park)
2. Southern Regional Park 1,569,000 1,569,000
3. Crozet Park: Buildings 77,510 77,510
and Grounds Improvements
4. Scottsville Conm~mity Center: 11,700 11,700
Baseball Field
5. Greenwood Cormm~nity Center:
a. Building Repairs 9,700 9,700
b. Outdoor Basketball Court 10,600 10,600
c. Wooden Playground 5,000 5,000
6. Mint Springs Valley Park:
a. Handicapped Accessibility 50,000 50,000
b. Middle Dam Riser 5,000 5,000
c. Picnic Shelter 15,500 15,500
7. Beaver Creek Park: 25,000 25,000
Handicapped Accessibility
8. Ivy Creek Natural Area: 42,174 21,087
........ Tenant House_~Imp~ovement
9. County Office Building:
Grounds Maintenance Facility 8,700 8,700
Subtotal
$ 4,495,664 $ 3,174,642
VIII. UTILITIES - COUNTY PROJECTS
1. Berkshire Road Channel 15,000 15,000
2. Woodbrook Channel 18,000 18,000
3. King George Circle Storm Sewer 11,000 11,000
4. Keene Transfer Station 117,500 117,500
5. Smithfield Road Storm Sewer 14,500 14,500
6. Windham/JarmanGap Road Channel 63,677 63,677
7. Peyton Drive Detention Basin 188,000 188,000
8. Bennington Channel 27,215 27,215
9. Four Seasons Detention Basin 69,600 69,600
10. Lickinghole Creek Regional
Sedimentation Basin 1,810,000 1,510~000
Subtotal
GRAND TOTAL
$ 2,334,492 $ 2,034,492
$28,516,793 .$25,863,521
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
1987/88-1991-92 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PRIOR
ALLOCA-
TIONS ~OUEST
-0- 631,150
$ -0- $ 631,150
PROPOSED FUNDING BY. FISCAL YEAR
_~_1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91
89,150 225,000 119,000 79~000 119,000
89,150 $ 225,000 $ 119,000 $ 79,000 $119,000
767,000 598,845 330,500 -0- -0- 268,345 -0-
520,000 1,049,000 649,000 400,000 -0- -0- -0-
16,200 61,310 12,110 12,000 13,000 12,000 12,200
-0- 11,700 11,700 -0- -0- -0- -0-
-0- 9,700 3,200 6,500 -0- -0- -0-
-0- 10,600 -0- 10,600 -0- -0- -0-
-0- 5,000 -0- -0- 5,000 -0- -0-
-0- 50,000 -0- 50,000 -0- -0- -0-
-0- 5,000 5,000 -0- -0- -0- -0-
-0- 15,500 -0- -0- -0- 15,500 -0-
-0- 25,000 -0- 25,000 -0- -0- -0-
7,087 14,000 14,000 -0- -0- -0- -0-
-0- 8,700 8,700 -0- -0- -0- -0
$1,310,287 $ 1,864,355 $1,034,210 $ 504,100 $ 18,000 $ 295,845 $ 12,200
-0- 1,510,000
-0- 15,000 15,000 -0- -0- -0- -0-
-0- 18,000 -0- -0- 18,000 -0- -0-
-0- 11,000 11,000 -0- -0- -0- -0-
-0- 117,500 7,500 110,000 -0- -0- -0-
10,500 4,000 4,000 -0- -0- -0- -0-
29,000 34,677 -0- 34,677 -0- -0- -0-
-0- 188,000 -0- -0- -0- 155,225 32,775
20,000 7,215 7,215 -0- -0- -0- -0-
44,600 25,000 25,000 -0- -0- -0- -0-
107,500 1,382,500 20,000
$ 104,100 $ 1,930,392 $ 177,215 $1,527,177 $ 38,000 $ 155,225 $ 32,775
$0,348,387 $19,515,134 $3,058,575 $5,852,514 $3,801,000 $5,508,070 $694,97',
PRIORITY
Urgent
Urgent
Urgent
Urgent
Urgent
Urgent
Necessary
Necessary
Necessary
Urgent
Desirable
Necessary
Urgent
Urgent
Urgent
Necessary
Urgent
Urgent
Urgent
Necessary
Desirable
Urgent
Urgent
Urgent
oo
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
PROPOSED FUNDING FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROV~NT PROGRAM
BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR 1987/88
EKISTING SOURCES:
General Fund
Rescue Squad Repayments
Fire Department Repayments
Sale of McIntire School
Capital Improvement Plan Fund Balance
Subtotal
ADDITIONAL SOURCES:
t. Carry Over Balance: General Fund
2. Carry Over Balance: School ~und
3. Interest Earned On Idle Funds
Increase in General Fund Appropriation
5. -Sal-e-ofAssets ........
6. Retention of Debt Service
7. Loan: Literary Fund
Subtotal
Temporary Loans
Pay Off of Temporary Loan
To~lFtmds Available
TOTAL OF RECOF£~rDED PROJECTS
Temporary Loan Interest
1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91
1991-92 TOTAl.
$1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $ 5,000,000
20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 100,000
40,000 40,000 ~0,000 -0- -0- 120,000
-0- 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 220,000
1,150,000 -0- -0- -0- -0- 1,150,000
$2,210,000 $1,115,000 $1,115,000 $1,075,000 $1,075,000 $ 6,590,000
500,000 500,000 500,000 ~00,000 ~00,000 2,300,000
-0- 300,000 350,000 400,000 ~50,000 1,500,000
400,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 200,000 1,350,000
- 850,000 850,000 1,750,000 3,~50,000
-0- -0- 1,650,O00 -0- 550,000 2,200,000
- 70,000 -20,000 60,000 5~0,000 650,000
- 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 2,000,000
$3,110,000 $2,280,000 $5,690,000 $2,990,000 $5,970,000
590,000 4,420,000 2,680,000 5,510,000 -
-590,000 -4,~20,000 -2,680,000 -5,510,000
$3,700,000 $6,110,000 $3,950,000 $5,820,000 $ 460,000
$3,660,000 $5,850,000 $3,800,000 $5,510,000 $ 690,000
... ~0,000 260,000 150,000 310,000 -0-
$3,700,000 $6,110,000 $3,950,000 $5,820,000 $ 690,000
$20,0#0,000
$20,040,000
$19,510,000
760,000
$20,270~000
Total Local Ftmds Needed
July 15, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mr. Agnor said that a joint meeting is being planned with the City
Council to discuss the funding of the Lickinghole Creek Basin project. He
recommended the adoption of the Capital ImprOvement Program budget for 1987-88
removing that project until the joint meeting with City Council and then it
can be restored.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adopt the
following budget for the 1987-88 Capital Improvement Program less funds for
Lickinghole Creek until after meeting with the City Council, by adopting the
following resolution. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher~ Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $3,320,790 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated
from the Capital Improvement Fund and transferred to the following
projects and coded as follows:
1-9000-33020-600100
1-9000-43100-701002
1-9000-60623-999999
1-9000-60751-300230
1-9000-60633-701002
1-9000-60635-701002
1-9000-60632-999999
1-9000-41000-702011
1-9000-41100-702015
1-9000-12200-700700
1-9000-71002-999999
1-9000-71001-999999
1-9000-71000-702014
1-9000-71000-702018
1-9000-71000-701012
1-9000-71000-702022
1-9000-71000-702016
1-9000-71000-702021
1-9000-93010-596003
1-9100-41046-704000
ls9100-41047-704000
1-9100-41048-704000
1-9100-41033-704000
1-9100-41044-704000
1-9100-41035-704000
Joint Security (J~il) Expansion
County Office Building Improvements
Crozet ElementaryiSchool
Albemarle High School
Stony Point Elementary
Yancey Elementary
Stone Robinson Elementary
Whitewood/Hydraulic Road Pathways
Route 678 Relocation
Computer Upgrade .
Rivanna Park
Southern RegionallPark
Crozet Park
Scottsville Community Center
Greenwood Community Center
Mint Springs Valley Park
Ivy Creek Natural Area
County Office Building
Transfer to Storm~Drainage
Berkshire Road Channel
King George Circle
Keene Transfer Station
Smithfield Road Storm Sewer
Bennington Channel
Four Seasons Detention Basin
$ 75,000
181,000
148,000
100,000
175,000
120,000
1,214,000
25,000
20,000
89,150
330,500
649,000
12,110
11,700
3,200
5,000
14,000
8,700
69,715
15,000
11,000
7,500
4,000
7,215
25,000
FURTHER, these projects shall be funded by the following revenues:
2-9000-15000-150101
2-9000-19000-190208
2-9000-19000-190304
2-9000-19000-190305
2-9000-51000-510100
2-9000-51000-512004
2-9100-51000-512000
Interest on Investments
Service Authority
Fire Department Repayments
Rescue Squad Repayments
App. from Fund Balance
General Fund Transfer
Transfer-CIP to Storm Drainage
$ 400,000
3,500
40,000
20,000
1,150,000
1,637,575
69,715
AND, FURTHER, that these appropriations are effective this date.
Mr. Fisher said that many of the capital projects have exceeded the
estimated amounts shown, so the funding is somewhat conjectural. He suggested
directing the staff to fully investigate the-possibility of the County being
approved for a triple-A bond rating in case it is necessary to incur a longer
term debt. The County would then be able to do so at the most favorable
interest rates. :
July 15, lg87 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Agnor confirmed the staff had done some preliminary work on this
question. Mr. Fisher asked for a motion to inquire how much it would cost and
how l°ng it would take for the County to get a triple-A rating.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by MrS. Cooke, to request
staff to investigate how much it would cost and how long!it would take for the
County to get a triple-A bond rating. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Lindstrom asked the staff to give the Board some information in the
near future about a pedestrian crossing at the Hydraulic/Lambs/Whitewood Road
intersection. He also asked for suggestions as to the use of the School
Board's property on Whitewood Road for some sort of recreational facilities.
Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-87-6. Crutchfield. To rezone 21.23 acres from
RA to LI to allow for additional parking and installation of septic field.
Property on east side of Route 606, northeast of Charlotteville-Albemarle
Airport, Tax Map 32, Parcels 9D, 93 and 17D. Rivanna District. (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on June 30 and July 7, 1987).
Mr. Horne gave the Staff Report as follows:
"Petition: The Crutchfield Corporation petitions the Board of Super-
visors to rezone 21.235 acres from RA, RURAL AREAS to LI, LIGHT
I~USTRIAL. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcels 9D, 9E, &
17D, is located east and adjacent to Crutchfield Corporation off
Route 606 in the Rivanna Magisterial District.
Character of the Area
One dwelling is located in a small clearing on this property. The
remaining acreage is heavily wooded.
Staff Comment
The applicant is requesting this rezoning in order to accommodate
expansion. No uses are currently proposed for the majority of the
property. Staff offers the following comments:
The rezoning request is consistent with the Land Use recommenda-
tions of the Comprehensive Plan.
The rezoning request is consistent with the Land Use recommenda-
tions of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport master plan.
Staff opinion is that LI zoning would be consistent with the
intent ~o limit uses in the area to those compatible to the
airport operation. Additionally, development of the site would
be subject to the special regulations of 30.2 Airport Impact
Area overlay zone.
Approval of this petition would permit expansion of an existing
use which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policy.
Public water is currently available at the developed Crutchfield
site. Public sewer is not currently available. (The Zoning
Ordinance requires issuance of a special use permit for
industrial-type discharge to septic drainfields~)
July 15, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 16)
(Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 9:05 P.M.)
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 7, 1987,
unanimously recommended approval of this petition.
Mr. Fisher asked if since this property is contiguous to other lands
which are largely undeveloped, the Planning Commission had considered this for
PD-IP. Mr. Home said due to the small nature of the tracts under one owner-
ship and with expansion of an existing building, the Planning Commission did
not think the layout was conducive to a planned, industrial park, approach.
Mr. Fisher asked if rezoning to straight LI will pose any threat to the
PD-IP zoning already in the area. Mr. Home said in his opinion, no, because
the PD-IP in existence has a separate access plan.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Horne what specifically qualifies the existing
use as LI. Mr. Horne replied there is a heavy warehousing use in conjunction
with a retail use. Mr. Lindstrom asked the proposed use for this property.
Mr. Horne replied that in the letter from Mr~ Crutchfield, part of parcel 17D
is proposed to be used as a parking area in conjunction with the existing use;
there is no proposed use for either parcel 9E or parcel 9D. He cited Mr.
Crutchfield's letter which states that given'the growth trends for Crutchfield
they will be wanting to use parcels 9E and 9D in the future.
At this time the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Crutchfield said parcels 9E and 9D were zoned LI at one time, but the
previous owner intended to build a house andhad the property down-zoned about
four years previously. Mr. Crutchfield said as concerns parking, the business
is growing rapidly and there is a stipulation in the zoning that parking
cannot be placed on a contiguous parcel unless the zoning is the same as the
primary lot of land. He said the septic system has been in operation for
eight years. They now have 120 employees, so want to be prepared in case a
problem arises. Mr. Crutchfield said the Health Department had examined the
site and there was no problem getting a septic permit. He said if the proper-
ty is rezoned LI, they could then combine the parcels. Mr. Crutchfield
concluded by repeating his requests.
Mr. Fisher asked if other persons wished to speak on this application.
With no one coming forward to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowie stated this property is in the Rivanna district. He has said
previously, he feels this is an appropriate area for light industry. Mr.
Bowie said he accepted the applicant's statement and the recommendations of
the staff and the Planning Commission. He then made a motion to approve
ZMA-87-6. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
(NOTE: At 9:15 P.M. Mr. Fisher called for a recess. Recess was over at
9:20 P.M. Mr. St. 3ohn returned at 9:21 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-86-79. Phillip & Mary Sheridan. To locate a nine
hole golf course on a 129+ acre parcel, zoned RA. Property located on north
side of Route 673, approximately one-fourth mile west of its intersection with
Route 810, Tax Map 26, Parcels 33 (part of), 33A and 33B, and Tax Map 14,
Parcel 8 (part of). White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on June 30 and July 7, 1987.)
Mr. Horne gave the Staff Report as follows:
"Petition: Phil & Mary Sheridan petition the Board of Supervisors to
issue a special use permit for a golf course (Section 10.2.2.4) on
174.7 acres of land zoned RA, Rural Areas. The golf course would be
an additional amenity added to the Montfair Campground (SP-76-86).
July 15, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 17)
Character of the Area: This area consists of large tracts of land,
much of which is in either agricultural or forestal land use. The
topography of the area is rolling to mountainous. The site is
heavily vegetated with second growth hardwoods and evergreens. The
property is located within the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir
Watershed.
STAFF COMMENT:
The applicant is proposing to locate a nine hole golf course along
the perimeter of the Montfair Campground. The golf course is intend-
ed to provide an additional amenity to the existing campground.
Typical accessory uses such as a pro shop, lounge and the like are
not proposed at this time. A driving range and putting green are to
be provided with this proposal. The course will be open to the
individuals staying at the campground and the general public.
Current facilities existing at the campground include nine vacation
cottages, three bath houses, recreation hall, office~and store, and
approximately 66 campsites for tent and R¥ camping. Both active and
passive recreation are provided in the form of a stable and bridle
paths, hiking trails and swimming and fishing lakes.
This request was reviewed by the Planning Commissionlon February 17,
1987. The Commission deferred action until further information
concerning traffic generation could be obtained and to allow the
applicant to address the concerns of the staff and the Planning
Commission.
Primary concerns of the staff were grading and clearing activities
near streams and ponds and on slopes of 25% or greater, and the
proximity of tees, fairways and greens to existing streams and ponds
(with the potential for excessive nutrient runoff from these areas
into the streams). The Commission also expressed concern with
traffic impact to roads and the proximity of the course to picnic,
camping areas, and horseback riding areas.
The applicant has revised the plan to keep all tees and greens a
minimum of 100 feet from any stream or pond. Further, no fairways
will be constructed within 100 feet of any stream. The course has
also been redesigned to minimize the amount of construction on 25%+
slopes. The plan also indicates that a 50 to 100 fo~t buffer area of
mature trees will be maintained between the golf course and other
campground facilities.
Although the changes to the proposed design are an improvement over
the previous request, the County Engineer has expresSed concern with
this proposal. As the County Engineer commented previously, "this
use does not conform well with the existing topography .... the topo-
graphy is rolling to steep and vegetated with hardwoods and ever-
greens. Runoff control and erosion control are a major concern
especially during the construction phase at which time the greatest
land-disturbing activities would occur."
The applicant has indicated a willingness to limit the amount of
grading that will occur at any one time during construction in order
to lessen the potential for erosion and sedimentation problems.
Staff recommends that no more than three holes be constructed during
any period of time. Further, clearing and grading would be allowed
only after the constructed holes have been stabilized to the satis-
faction of the County Engineer.
Additional traffic generation from the golf course is anticipated to
be an average of 300 vehicle trips per day (based on traffic genera-
tion figures supplied by YDOT -- 9 vehicle trips per acre of golf
course). The existing traffic counts for Route 673 and Route 810 in this
vicinity are 209 and 732 vehicle trips per day. However, it is
difficult to determine the impact this additional use will have to
the overall trip generation for the campground.
July 15, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 18)
The Virginia Department of Transportation has commented that while
Route 673 for .35 miles west of Route 810 is hard surfaced and currently
tolerable, the remaining portion of Route 673 is non-hard surfaced and
rated as non-tolerable. Furthermore, portions of Route 810 south of
Route 673 are non-tolerable, and several bridges on Route 810 have
posted weight limits. This request would make Routes 673 and 810
nontolerable, therefore, VDOT does not support this request.
Staff is concerned that the existing natural features of this site
may not lend itself well to the development of a golf course. The
existence of numerous streams along with moderate to steeper slopes
on the site, and soils which are susceptible to erosion (at least
during construction) may result in significant environmental impacts
during construction, and possibly after !construction if the course is
not properly operated or maintained. Also, this development would
require the clearing of large amounts of woodland around the peri-
meter of the site which could have adverse affect on the nature of
the area.
Most of the concerns raised pertaining to this use are related to the
specific design and layout of the golfcourse. Staff should advise
the Commission that potential environmemtal impacts would, therefore,
be better addressed as further engineering and design of the course
is executed and developed. The applicant is advised that a site
plan, along with grading plans, erosion control and runoff control
plans will be required for approval prio~r to the issuance of any
permits for the construction of the golf course (should the special
use permit be granted).
Since as the golf course is intended to be operated as accessory to
and part of the campground facilities, ~staff is of the opinion that
the existing character and use of the site will not be substantially
changed. The impact to adjacent properties would not be substantial
provided that adequate facilities are established to contain runoff
on site and appropriate setbacks and buffers are established.
Therefore, unless the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
determine that the additional traffic generation from the golf course
would be in excess of the safe capacity of the public roadway system,
staff would recommend approval of this r~quest.
Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this request, staff
recommends the following conditions:
Submittal of a site plan for approval by the Planning Commis-
sion. The site plan review shall include County Engineer
approval of site grading and drainage calculations.
Development of golf course to be in general accordance with
preliminary plan entitled Montfair, submitted May 27, 1987.
Greens and tees shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from
perennial or intermittent stream or pond.
The amount of grading to occur on site shall be limited to three
holes at any one time. Further grading will not be permitted
until constructed holes are stabilized to the satisfaction of
the County Engineer.
Additional Information:
Soils: The predominate soils on this site are Hayesville stony loam,
Thurmont, and Braddock loam. Typical characteristics of these soils
are rapid surface runoff, with a moderate to severe hazard of ero-
sion. Both of these characteristics aredue primarily to the slopes
involved. Also, the organic content matter and natural fertility of
these soils are relatively low. Broken rock may be found throughout
portions of the site, some may be boulder size.
In reviewing the soils found on this site, the Soil Conservation
Service commented that once built the golf course should not be
subject to any unusual erosion problems, if the course is maintained
July 15, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 19)
properly. Proper maintenance most likely will involve regular
seeding, fertilizing and irrigation. The applicant has stated his
intent to provide an irrigation system to the greens."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 7, 1987,
by a vote of 6-1, recommended approval of the request with Conditions #1 and
#2 in the staff's report, but in Condition #3, added the words: "all grading
shall be stabilized during the winter months also."
Mr. Horne then indicated on the map the location of the routes, the
location of the property and the campground. He stated Planning Cox~ission
staff and County Engineering staff walked the layout of the golf course, and
felt the conceptual plan is generally appropriate to the topography as best
can be determined at this time.
Mr. Fisher commented that the Highway Department does not support the
request. It seems the Planning Commission~has dismissed the Highway Depart-
ment's recommendation saying they really do not know how mUch traffic this use
will generate. He asked how the Planning Commission could be so casual. Mr.
Horne replied that the ITE manual the YDOT uses has very ~oor information on
golf courses, and no information on golf courses in this Configuration in
conjunction with another use. Therefore, he personally feels the vehicle
estimates for this use are somewhat high.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Phil Sheridan addressed the Board, saying the architect on the
project is Mr. Buddy Loving, who is well-known and respected in his field.
Mr. Sheridan said that all the stipulations that the Planning Commission had
made he would adhere to because the Planning Commission's~concerns are his
concerns. Addressing the traffic situation, he said as far as Route 673 is
concerned, 99 percent of the campers enter and leave by that route, either
during their stay at or to and from Montfair. Mr. Sheridan said that past the
entrance there is a dirt road that is not used except by the residents who
live past Montfair. Mr. Sheridan said when he went to the Highway Department,
it was determined in a survey done around July 4, that 200 vehicles per day
would use the road; on a 24 hour basis it would be eight cars an hour.
Mr. Francis Fife, Chairman of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority,
spoke saying he was concerned about all of the area in the South Fork Rivanna
River watershed. Mr. Fife said that if a golf course is built, he does not
know what threat it will pose to the reservoir. He said golf courses come and
go when not used as much as the owner would like and the property cannot be
properly maintained. That could create a problem in the future, and that does
concern him. ~
Mr. Wally Yaeger addressed the Board and said his father is a member of
the Monticello Lake community, and he spoke with Mr. Yaeger recently about the
expected growth of that golf area, saying it is expected that course will be
used to capacity within five years. He said one of the questions that may
affect traffic is whether or not Montfair expects to begin a formal member-
ship, which would draw people not only using the location for just recrea-
tional facilities, but as a regular event.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Sheridan if he had any further comment. Mr.
Sheridan replied that he anticipates there will be local people playing also.
He said his main business has been people on vacation and he does not antici-
pate much more of a population than he gets now, but there may be people
coming in the future to play golf because the facility is there. Mr. Sheridan
said he does anticipate a greater volume of business with this golf course,
noting Route 810 has been improved from Crozet out to White Hall and when the
need arises he assumes it will be improved from White Hall to Brown's Cove.
Mr. Fisher said the issue is about the golf course and the watershed, so
is not limited to just the construction phase. He said most of the conditions
relate to the construction phase. The other issues are excessive use of
fertilizers and how the fertilizers get flushed off into the streams and cause
algae blooms in the reservoir. He said golf courses are estimated to be five
to ten times as great a contributor of pollutants as normal farmland'. He
July 15, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 20)
asked Mr. Sheridan if he had any particular plans to manage this facility;
whether the people applying the fertilizers are going to be trained and will
be aware of the problems, and will they try to mitigate the runoff by keeping
excess fertilizers out of the streams.
Mr. Sheridan said he wants to reinstate trout fishing and with runoff of
excess fertilizers you cannot have trout fishing. Mr. Sheridan said he had
the advantages of the Soil Conservation people; he intended to use the experi-
ence of Mr. Buddy Loving. Mr. Sheridan said he would have to hire a superin-
tendent of maintenance who is qualified to take care of the golf course. He
said he has experience in farming, forestry, conservation, wildlife manage-
ment, animal husbandry, construction and bulldozer operation. He said he is
aware of a lot of the problems that come up.
With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Henley said he does not see any problem and then offered motion to
approve SP-86-79, subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission as follows:
Submittal of a site plan for approval by the Planning Commission.
The site plan review shall include County Engineer approval of site
grading and drainage calculations;
Development of golf course to be in general accordance with prelimi-
nary plan entitled Montfair, submitted May 27, 1987, Greens and
tees shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from perennial or
intermittent streams or ponds;
The amount of grading to occur on site shall be limited to three
holes at any one time. All grading shall be stabilized during the
winter months also. Further grading will not be permitted until
constructed holes are stabilized to the satisfaction of the County
Engineer.
Mr. Bowie seconded the foregoing motion.
Mrs. Cooke spoke in support of the motion.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would not be able to support the motion. He said
this is not an appropriate location. Mr. Lindstrom said it is an issue not
only of construction and trying to cope with grading on slopes, but also
long-term care and maintenance of such a facility is a problem. Mr. Lindstrom
said this is a very intensive use of land, and he thinks it would be a mistake
to allow it in the watershed andhe cannot support the petition.
Mr. Sheridan said the campground has been a family operation since it
started and he cannot imagine this becoming another Pen Park or something like
that. The golf course is going to be more like an accessory to the campground
and he does not see any problem with it.
Mr. Fisher said his problem is the question of the use, the application
of fertilizer, and not with Mr. Sheridan. He said Mr. Sheridan could sell the
property tomorrow and someone else would have the rights to this special
permit, and could upgrade the use far beyond 'what anyone envisions at this
point. Mr. Fisher said secondly, if the golf course is not maintained pro-
perly what can be done about it. Mr. Fisher commented it seems like this
facility is going from a small camping operation to something more closely
resembling a resort. Mr. Fisher said if this petition is approved, he feels
there will be pressure to allow nine more holes and then perhaps other facili-
ties common to golf courses. This is quite different from a small campground.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is not concerned with what other things might come
along. He does not think it would matter if two or 200 people a day used the
facility, except for the traffic impact. His primary concern is the almost
unavoidable damage and erosion necessarily entailed in constructing the golf
course. Mr. Lindstrom said if it is to be anything other than nine strips of
brown grass with a hole at the end of each, it is going to take a lot of
fertilizer to keep the facility going. He said he does not see how anyone is
July 15, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 21)
going to do any differently; to say this is an appropriate use in a watershed
area is a mistake; it is a mistake to accept that principle.
Mr. Henley replied that he does not think anymore fertilizer will be used
than would be used on producing a hay field. Mr. Lindstrom replied that if he
were to decide he had to limit his decisions because of what some crazy farmer
might do, he would just pack up and go home. He said that might make a lot of
people happy. Mr. Lindstrom said neither the State nor the good Lord gives
the Board any control over farmers, but it does over anybody else that has to
do business in the County. He said the Board has a responsibility to deal
with that; that a lot of farming practices are done very badly and he thinks
this contributes significantly to the watershed problem.
There being no further discussion, roll was called at this time and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, and Way.
NAYS: Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 9. To consider requesting State scenic river designation
for the Moormans River.
Mr. Fisher recognized Ms. Kat Imhoff from the Piedmont Environmental
Council, who made a presentation on behalf of a group called "Friends of
Albemarle Rivers." A copy of the report is on file in the Clerk's office.
Before making the presentation Ms. Imhoff gave some background informa-
tion on the group. She reminded the Board that the Moormans is already
designated a County scenic river. Ms. Imhoff said State designation would
simply be an additional tier of protection for the river, which the P.E.C.
considers a very important local resource. Ms. Imhoff commented that Mr.
Richard Gibbons, from the State Department of Conservation and Historic
Resources, was present to answer questions.
Mrs. Bunny Murray addressed the Board saying she lives on property next
to the reservoir. She thinks State designation would be a real asset for the
Moormans River. Mrs. Murray said the scenic factors that~make the County so
attractive are in constant jeopardy of disappearing each year, and the State
designation would reinforce the value placed on running water in its natural
state. Mrs. Murray advised the Board that the County residents she has spoken
with endorse the designation.
Mr. John Birdsall said he heartily supports the scenic river movement,
and that he was not aware of any of his neighbors who oppose the idea.
Mr. Forbes Reback, a resident of Millington, said since the Moormans is
already designated a scenic river in the County's zoning ordinance, he did not
see how the Board could not pass the resolution, and he urged the Board to go
forward with it.
Mr. Gibbons said he was prepared to answer any questions the Board might
have. He gave Mr. Fisher a copy of "Virginia's Scenic Riwers," a brochure
which outlines the assets of the program, along with an overview of the
program itself. He explained again what would happen if the designation goes
through, commenting to the Board that the Governor appoints the Advisory
Board. Ms. Imhoff asked Mr. Gibbons to confirm that the Board of Supervisors
can suggest people to be on the Advisory Board, and that ~he Board could also
be the administering agency if they so chose. Mr. Gibbons confirmed that
statement and gave several examples of those acting as administering agencies.
Mr. Lindstrom commented that he thought the option was to endorse approv-
al of the Moormans as a scenic river. He did not see any reason to defer it
to a formal public hearing.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to endorse
designation of the Moormans River as a State scenic river. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
July 15, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 22)
7O
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 10. Appeal: Landfall & Tract A (Bruce van der Linde)
Preliminary Plat. The petition was brought before the Board by the following
letter, dated June 11, 1987, from Mr. Bruce S. van der Linde.
"On the evening of June 9, 1987, at approximately 7:30 PM, the
LANDFALL & TRACT A (Bruce S. van der Linde) Preliminary Plat was
heard. We were both in attendance. I am writing to request an
appeal hearing with the Albemarle County Board Of Supervisors on this
issue. I am specifically appealing the decision of the Planning
Commission to use as an access point for Parcels 1-4 the entrance and
private road known as Helios Path, and the public road standard
serving these proposed lots.
The sentiment of the Planning Commission reflected a unanimous
approval of the plan, its conception and separation from SOLARIS as a
separate entity, but could not resolve the provisions of SeCtion
18-36 and be comfortable granting a variance. I would very much
appreciate having this hearing at a night session, no sooner than
July 15, Wednesday, 1987. The public cdmment needed from approxi-
mately fifteen (15) families who live in SOLARIS, and who would be
impacted under present Planning Commission recommendations, is vital
to this appeal. I am specifically relying on the attached provisions
as a basis for this appeal, as well as other underlying reasons."
Mr. Horne gave the Staff Report as follows:
Proposal: To create five parcels ranging from +21 to +45 acres, with
a ~143 acre residue. Tract A and the residue are proposed to be
served by Helios Path, a private road in Solaris subdivision; Parcels
#1-4 are proposed to be served by a new private road off Route 641.
AcreaKe: +300 acres total.
Zonins: RA, Rural Areas.
Location: Helios Path Road intersects at the intersection of Routes
640 and 641. The proposed new private road will intersect Route 641,
approximately 0.5 mile east of the intersection with Route 640. Tax
Map 34, Parcel 50. Rivanna Magisterial District.
STAFF COMMENTS
The applicant has demonstrated that each proposed parcel has a
building site in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. The Health
Department has approved two septic locations on each proposed parcel.
The two issues to be resolved by the Commission are as follows:
Access point for Parcels #1-4 - by new entrance to Route 641 or
by Helios Path; and
Standard of road serving proposed subdivision
once the preceding issue is resolved.
to be considered
Access Point
The Commission may recall hearing the request of Solaris (van der
Linde) Final Plat - request for relief from condition on February 10,
1987. This request to permit direct access for the residue tract
onto Route 641 instead of restricting access to the internal private
road, Helios Path Road, was denied by the Planning Commission. The
Commission indicated that the access point issue would be reviewed
once a subdivision plat was presented for which this access point was
requested.
July 15, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 23)
The Subdivision Ordinance provision to limit the number of entrances
to state roads requires "any lot fronting on any such (private) road
shall enter only onto such road and shall have no immediate access
onto any public street .... " (Section 18-36f). Relief from this
requirement shall be based on the following:
"Due to existing development, topography, or other physical consider-
ation as distinguished from a special privilege or convenience,
alternative access would alleviate a clearly demonstrable danger of
significant degradation to the environment of the site or adjacent
properties."
The applicant's attached letter and supporting maps/plats note the
following as justification for this waiver request:
The proposed private road off Route 641 has been laid out with a
surveyor's help to follow contours, and minimizing impact on the
neighboring wetlands. This avoids significant degradation of
the environment and topography by not having to create switch-
backs to these proposed parcels.
This proposed access would reduce the impact of farm traffic to
families in Solaris.
The proposed access would be more direct to a state road.
Access along the internal private road would be approximately
one mile longer.
In the summer of 1983, the applicant requested an access evalua-
tion by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
for a potential of five lots accessing as presently proposed on
Route 641. They found that commercial sight distance is obtain-
able with vegetation stripping, and that an island will be
necessary to maximize safety for turning vehicles. By a plat
dated November, 1984, the applicant obtained the 30 foot pipe-
stem and 10 foot easement for fill from a neighbor (parcel 11)
to be added to the subject property. In addition, the applicant
obtained a 10 foot easement for road cut and a 30 foot easement
for the entrance from another neighbor (parcel liB).
Historically, the proposed 30 foot private drive has always been
used to access this farm land.
The Virginia Department of Transportation commented at Site Review:
"In a letter dated February 4, 1987, for the February Public Hear-
ings, the Department addressed cox~ents for relief from Condition D
of the August 13, 1985, approval of the Solaris Final Plat. The best
access for this residue is at the intersection of Helios Path Road
and Route 641. Therefore, the Department recommends~that Condition D
remain as is in accordance with the previous approvals. The absolute
minimum required sight distance can be obtained on ROute 641 at the
location shown on this plan for parcels one through four. Some
cutting of vegetation on the opposite side of the road would be
necessary and a sign island would be required in this private street
commercial entrance to insure that vehicles turning left into the
entrance have the maximum obtainable sight distance.'
The County Engineer recommends denial of this accessiwaiver request.
In regards to this request, Planning staff offers th~ following
comments and observations:
By right, the residue tract could be divided into a maximum of
14 lots, each of which must be 21 acres or greater. Due to the
steep slopes and flood plain in areas, it may be difficult to
create the maximum potential number of lots.
The residue tract presently utilizes the internal private road,
Helios Path. This road presently serves 13 lots within Solaris
and one lot not in the subdivision. The entrance to Solaris at
July 15, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 24)
Helios Path is on a curve, and was upgraded by the applicant
with a turn lane and the realignment of the Routes 640 and 641
intersection.
Bo
Route 641 in the area of the pipestem proposed for access, is on
the outside of a curve. There are approximately 14 lots within
1/4 mile in either direction from the proposed entrance. This
curve is not posted with a cautionary speed, and Virginia
Department of Transportation estimates a 35 miles per hour
average speed travelled.
Minimum sight distance may be obtained by removal of a tree and
associated grading within the 40 foot right-of-way. The hori-
zontal curvature and vertical grade on the curve are complica-
tions to sight distance, particularly for vehicles turning left
into the proposed road. Sight distance minimums are based on
averages; a lower than average vehicle may not have minimum
sight distance due to the grade. The measurement is based on
assumed positions of vehicles; a vehicle stopping too short to
turn left may not obtain minimum sight distance.
The applicant has relied in good faith and proceeded on the
findings of a 1983 access evaluation by the Highway Department.
This includes purchasing land and easement from one property
owner, and easement from another.
The proposed road will provide a slightly shorter distance
travelled to and from proposed parcels than access by Helios
Path.
Access by the proposed road involves crossing a small portion of
one-hundred year floodplain. This filling of floodplain to
Preddy Creek is the outer edge or backwater area, and presents
no major difficulties according to the County Engineer.
In conclusion, staff recommends that the access waiver be denied and
access to all proposed parcels be restricted to Helios Path. This is
based on the facts that a) the provisions for approval of such waiver
have not been adequately demonstrated, and b) minimum sight distance
is not obtainable in cases deviating from the average vehicle height,
position, etc.
Road Standard
Based on these additional five parcels and residue, a total of 20
parcels will be served by Helios Path. Helios Path is a 30 foot
private road easement. Several existing parcels are under five acres
in area and some agricultural/forestal production is utilized on the
residue tract. Therefore, due to the number of lots, the lots sizes,
and the mix of residential and agricultural uses, staff recommends
that Helios Path be upgraded to a public,road.
The applicant does not have the "free and clear" fee to the right-of-
way. This should not be a point of consideration.
If the Planning Commission chooses to approve Helios Path to remain
as a private road, a special circumstance must be granted. This is
due to the fact that none of the standardCircumstances under which
the Commission may approve a private road apply in this case.
Planning, Virginia Department of Transportation, and Engineering
staff recommend denial of the access waiver to allow a new road to
serve parcels #1-4, and instead recommend access for all proposed
parcels to be limited to Helios Path. Planning and Engineering staff
recommend that Helios Path be upgraded to be accepted into the State
secondary road system. Staff recommends approval subject to the
following:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
July 15, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 25)
Access for all parcels is limited to Helios Path. Helios Path
is to be upgraded to public road standards and dedicated for
acceptance into the State secondary road system.
The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions
have been met:
a. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
County Engineer approval of public road and drainage plans
and calculations;
Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and
drainage plans and calculations;
d. Planning staff approval of technical notes to plat.
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 9, 1987,
by a vote of 6-1, recommended approval subject to the conditions in the
staff's report.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Horne if there is more land that can be divided at
some time. Mr. Home replied affirmatively, pointing to the acreage on the
map, but there are no more development rights on the 143 acre residue farm
area, it would have to be in lot sizes which are exempt from the ordinance.
Mr. Lindstrom said it is his understanding from the staff's report that
the Board has to make one of two specific findings in order to approve the
proposed entrance. He said the staff report only addresses the first of the
two issues. Mr. Horne replied the staff report has one section which combines
the two, and offered to read that section. ~
Mr. Fisher called for comments from the applicant, but requested that Mr.
van der Linde limit his presentation to 10 or 15 minutes in the interest of
time.
Mr. van der Linde thanked the Board and the Planning Commission for their
time. Mr. van der Linde asked Mr. Home to confirm the sentiment of the
Commission. Mr. Fisher advised Mr. van der Linde that heldid not think that
was appropriate. Mr. van der Linde stated that the condition to use Helios
Path was actually placed on Solaris in August, 1985, not When Solaris was
approved in 1983-84. Mr. van der Linde described the farmhouse, the farm, the
uses of the land, Solaris, its history and historical use~ He said that
economically there is no benefit to him whether the existing entrance is
upgraded or the new entry constructed. Mr. van der Linde distributed a
free-hand engineering drawing to the Board of the Solaris entrance, depicting
on-the-ground physical features, to show that the new entrance offers a less
congested possibility.
Mr. Bowie stated he had suggested the comparison be made because he
thought it would be of interest the Board. He said, in his opinion, there is
a difference in safety factors that should be pointed out~
Mr. van der Linde presented photographs and described same. Mr. van der
Linde also handed out a drawing of the Landfall entrance. Mr. Fisher reminded
Mr. van der Linde of the time. Mr. ~van der Linde then handed out and describ-
ed the photographs of the Landfall entrance, citing this entrance is more
critical, and he went on to describe the sight distance at this entrance. He
said that in the opinion of the Virginia Department of Highways, there is no
problem with safety and the entrance will do the job. Mr~ van der Linde
distributed photographs of the farm road that was being proposed to be up-
graded to a state road to serve the four to five rural tracts, totaling
125-150 acres. He commented that it would be difficult to make the extra mile
of road consistent with the state road.
Mr. Morris Foster commented that Mr. van der Linde always thought that
Landfall had a completely separate entry. He said Mr. van der Linde proposes
to develop a small number of "farmettes". Mr. Foster said he does not think a
public roadway should be constructed through Solaris, a residential community,
July 15, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 26)
for land to be used basically as small farms. He said Mr. van der Linde
intended that for any development done at Landfall, the entrance to the large
tracts would be from another direction; that was not a consideration when
Solaris was designed. The idea came about at a later date. He does not agree
with the interpretation that any tract of land having access on an internal
road is forever restricted to using that internal road; it just is not logi-
cal.
Mr. Bowie requested that Mr. Fisher allow representatives of the Solaris
Homeowners' Association to speak.
Mr. Dan Fisher, President of the Solaris Homeowners' Association, urged
the Board's support for the entrance on Route 641. He said it is more practi-
cal, keeping in mind the 140+ acres that in the future could be developed.
Mr. Fisher said most of the residents moved to Solaris to have the convenience
of being close to town, but not in the city; that the residents are a close
knit group not totally resistant to change but careful as to how they go about
making that change.
At this time, Mr. Fisher asked if there were people present to speak in
opposition to the appeal.
Mrs. Margaret Andrew reminded the Board she had written a letter, which
Mr. Fisher acknowledged, and spoke to urge the Board to turn down Mr. van der
Linde's appeal. Mrs. Andrew feels it is ra shameto give up farmland for
subdivisions in a rural area, she does not think that is what most people
want; at least it is not what she wants. She said her driveway is just
opposite to the entrance to Landfall. Mrs. Andrew said Route 641 on the west
is a descending road with a series of three sharp curves. The Landfall sign
is not seen until one comes out of that lasticurve. Drivers tend to speed up
on the straightaway and she noted the many accidents that have occurred on
Route 641.
Mr. Per Jenster, the landowner of the farm next to the Landfall entrance,
commented that he agreed with Mrs. Andrew. He said his is the land that
receives all the cars that come tumbling down the cliff. Mr. Jenster said he
had spoken with Mr. van der Linde and reviewed this proposal, and he feels the
proposal is very well thought out. Mr. Jenster said he has observed the
integrity shown in the planning of the Solaris development and believes the
Landfall access will improve the safety of that particular area. It will
greatly enhance the safety of the people whoilive on Route 641.
Mrs. Stella R. Warfel said she had written the Board a letter in opposi-
tion to the proposed new entrance road. Shelmentioned that Route 641 has six
or seven sharp curves. Mrs. Warfel said there has not been much said about
why the Planning Commission denied the new entrance. She said there are
regulations concerning roadways for residential developments, and other
developers have managed to live with those regulations. She asked why the
Board just did not say no.
Mr. Fisher stated the Board understands the issue. He commented that the
people who use Route 641 have not spoken here tonight. Mr. Fisher commented
that the Highway Department is the recognized expert on roads. He asked if
there is any question in anyone's mind as to where the entrance ought to be
from the standpoint of public safety. He asked if anyone from the Highway
Department was at the meeting. Since there was no one, he asked Mr. Horne for
the Highway Department's recommendation. Mr. Horne replied that the Highway
Department's recommendation is for access through Helios Path. He asked Mr.
Home again for both the County Engineer's, the Planning staff's, and the
Planning Commission's recommendation. Mr. Home replied that all recommend
access through Helios Path.
Mr. Lindstrom commented that he had been out to look at the location of
the proposed Landfall entrance, and the issue is more complex than that this
is a dangerous spot. He read all the material and letters received by the
Board, and he thinks the issue is not whether a dangerous entrance would be
created. The entrance has to meet State standards or it cannot be built, so
that is not an issue. He feels there is only one section of road that has
marginal site distance, but even at that driveway point, there would be
reasonable sight distance if the banks were dealt with as proposed. He
July 15, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 27)
commented that the Highway Department's evaluation determined that it is a
potentially acceptable entrance. Mr. ~indstrom said he thinks the issue is
whether or not waiver of the ordinance to allow the entrance is justified on
one of the two criteria that are required for the determination. Mr.
Lindstrom commented that the County is not trying to encourage development in
the rural areas, and everytime a waiver is allowed, the County is operating
contrary to its Plan; by giving this waiver, the Board will be allowing
development of rural areas that probably otherwise would not be developed.
Mr. Bowie commented that he agreed with much of what Mr. Lindstrom has
said. He also went out to the site and drove along Route..641 in both direc-
tions. The County would be requiring that a road be built through a residen-
tial subdivision to get to four lots, when those lots could be served by a
another road. Once this became a State road, would be available for anyone to
use. He said when the two sites are looked at, with the improvements that the
Highway Department requires, the sight distance is greater at the proposed
entrance than it is at Helios Path, in both directions. He commented that at
Helios Path there are two private driveways within 90 feet in addition to
other driveways. Mr. Bowie said, in his opinion, the proposed entrance to the
rear of the site makes more sense from a standpoint of preserving the country-
side, not building a needless road through a subdivision, and protecting the
community that is there.
Mr. Fisher said ordinancm.~equirements try to limit the number of en-
trances~ onto a public road~uc~g~-~a public road from a thor-
oughfa~e to a driveway. He believes that what has been recommended by the
Planning Commission, is the best decision. Mr. Fisher commented that in
future years, he feels there will be more development in this area, noting
that the history of the land seems to indicate that is. what the owner intends
to do. He believes that the staff and the Planning Commission have made the
right recommendation, and he will not vote for a waiver of Condition #1.
Mr. Bowie said he believes that even at the curve oniRoute 641 where the
entrance is proposed, the entrance will be safer and the =oad will be safer
for the traveling public. Mr. Bowie then offered motion that Condition #1
concerning the development of parcels 1-4 of Landfall be deleted. The motion
was seconded by Mrs. Cooke.
Mr. Fisher restated the motion to be approval of the preliminary plat of
Parcels 1-4 Landfall and Tract A on Helios Path with only Condition #2, items
(a) through (d), (set out below), as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Bowie said that was correct. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley and Mr. Way.
NAYS: Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom.
NOTE: The conditions of approval are as follows:
The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions
have been met:
a. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
b. County Engineer approval of public road and drainage plans and
calculations;
c. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and
drainage plans and calculations;
d. Planning staff approval of technical notes to plat.
(NOTE: Mr. Henley left the meeting at 11:01 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 11. Request to transfer funds for Student Exchange
Program.
July 15, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 28)
Mr. Agnor stated this agenda item is to request that $7,500 for the
Italian Student Exchange Program be transferred to the Charlottesville/
Albemarle Technical Education Center, for the disbursement of the funds. He
said when the project is completed the County will be provided with an item-
ization of the use of the funds, and any residue monies will be returned to
the County.
Mrs. Cooke offered motion to authorize transferring $7,500 from Code
1-1000-11010-550601, Student Exchange Program, to the CATEC Foundation. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Berkmar Detention Basin Easements. The following
memo, dated July 10, 1987, was received from Mr. Agnor.
(NOTE: Before the discussion began, Mr. Lindstrom abstained
because of possible conflict of interest and~left the room at 11:02 P.M. Mrs.
Cooke abstained~e~because of personal reasons and left the room at 11:03
P.M.)
"The Berkmar Detention Basin is nearing completion and there are
several~easements which are needed prior to this completion. Staff
has been discussing these easements with adjoining property owners
and offer this attached agreement for your consideration. The
easements to be granted from adjoining property owners to the County
include:
o A permanent 20-foot slope maintenance easement;
o The expansion of an existing 16-foot drainage easement;
o A 20-foot temporary construction easement;
The easement granted from the County to the adjoining property owners
include:
A non-exclusive easement for ingress-egress, utility installa-
tion and maintenance, and provision of improvements.
The County Attorney's office and the Engineering Department have
prepared the necessary agreements, deed of conveyance and plats. The
County Executive's staff recommends that you approve these documents
and authorize the Chairman of the Board to sign the deed for recorda-
tion. A sketch plan showing these easements will be provided at the
July 15 meeting."
Mr. Agnor commented that this concerned easements going from the land-
owner to the County and from the County to landowner, and that Mr. Steve
Cresswell, Engineering Department, would explain the purpose of the easements.
Mr. Cresswell pointed out on the map the area under construction as the
Berkmar Stormwater Detention Basin. He said the improvement is to improve the
outfall channel. Negotiations with owners have been delayed because a parcel
is currently under contract for sale and negotiations are complicated by the
fact that the person purchasing the property needed easements. Mr. Cresswell
explained that the owners have asked that the channel be piped so the area
can be used for parking. Mr. Cresswell said staff has tentatively agreed with
the request as long as the structural integrity of the basin can be main-
tained. He explained the easements to the Board. He said adding fill will
add additional structural integrity to the basin which limits the amount of
the County's liability in the event of the failure of the basin.
Mr. Fisher asked if there is any assurance the basin will work after con-
struction. Once completed it will be too late.to get easements from anyone
July 15, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 29)
else. Mr. Cresswell confirmed that the basin will work; the restrictions in
the deed and the conveyance have to meet not only the site plan development
ordinance, but any additional requirements to make sure hydraulic functions
will be maintained.
Mr. Way offered motion to approve the necessary agreements, deed of
conveyance (set out in full below), and plats for the Berkmar Detention Basin
and to authorize the Chairman to execute the easements. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Bowie. Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
ABSTAINING: Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom.
THIS AGREEMENT, made the 7th day of July, 1987; by and among
DONALD W. FOSS and MARY JEAN FOSS, his wife, parties of the first
part (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Foss"); and the COUNTY
OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth
of Virginia, party of the second part (hereinafter "the County"); and
WITNES SETH:
WHEREAS, Donald W. Foss and Mary Jean Foss are the owners of
Lots 5 and 6 of the "Berkmar" subdivision, as shown on a plat pre-
pared by William Roudabush, Jr., C.L.S., dated March, 1963, and
revised April, 1965, recorded in Deed Book 410, page 210, in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia;
and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is the owner of Lot 2C, as
shown on a plat of record in the said Clerk's office in Deed Book
913, page 115; and ~
WHEREAS, the parties hereto wish to convey to each other certain
beneficial easements which will coordinate the development of their
respective properties;
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and the
mutual grants and covenants contained herein, the parties agree as
follows:
(A) Donald W. Foss and Mary Jean Foss do hereby GRANT, BARGAIN,
SELL and CONVEY with GENERAL WARRANTY and ENGLISH COVENANTS OF TITLE
unto the County of Albemarle the following easements as hereinafter
described and as shown on the attached plat entitled Easement Convey-
ance Plat for Donald W. Foss and Mary Jean Foss, dated January 20,
1987, and prepared by the Albemarle County Engineering Department,
which plat is incorporated herein as Exhibit "A":
(1) A permanent 20-foot slope maintenance easement, the loca-
tion of which is shown on the Plat. The County shall have the right
to enter upon and within the boundaries of the easemSnt on the
property of Foss for the purposes of seeding and otherwise preventing
and repairing erosion to the slope of a stormwater detention basin
and outfall ditch to be constructed on Foss and adjoining property.
(2) A permanent drainage easement on either side of the exist-
ing 16-foot drainage easement, as shown on the Plat, for the purpose
of installing, constructing, maintaining, repairing,laltering,
replacing, and removing a drainage ditch and/or culverts and other
appurtenant facilities and for the purpose of depositing water within
the boundary of said easement as shown on Exhibit "A".
(3) A 20-foot temporary construction easement for the purpose
of construction of the detention pond and outfall ditch, the location
of which is shown on Exhibit "A". This easement shall terminate when
construction is completed and all work by the contractor has been
accepted by the County.
July 15, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 30)
As part of these easements, the County shall have the right to
enter upon the property of Foss within the easements for the purposes
of installing, constructing, maintaining, repairing, replacing, and
extending the detention pond, drainage ditch and slope, and the right
to ingress and egress thereto as reasonably necessary for said
purposes.
Whenever it is necessary to excavate earth within an easement,
the County agrees to backfill such excavation in a proper and work-
manlike manner so as to restore surface conditions as nearly as
practicable to the same conditions as prior to excavation, including
the restoration of any paved surfaces which may be damaged or dis-
turbed as part of such excavation.
Foss, on behalf of themselves, their successors or assigns,
agree there will be no changes in grade or slopes within said ease-
ment which would affect the safety, integrity, or operation and
maintenance of the detention pond or outfall channel; and that there
shall be no such changes of any sort except with the prior written
approval of the County.
(B) The County of Albemarle, Virginia, does hereby GRANT,
BARGAIN, SELL, and CONVEY with SPECIAL WARRANTY unto Donald W. Foss
and Mary Jean Foss a non-exclusive easement over Lot 2C for the
purposes, and subject to the limitations, described hereinafter, and
as shown on the attached plat entitled Easement Conveyance Plat for
Albemarle County dated July 6, 1987, and prepared by the Albemarle
County Engineering Department, which pl~t is incorporated herein as
Exhibit "B":
(1) Ingress and egress to and from the aforedescribed Lots 5
and 6 to the southerly boundary of Lot 7A, as shown on Exhibit "B";
(2) Construction, installation, and maintenance of utility
lines and related facilities to exclusively serve Lots 5 and 6
including, but not limited to, gas, electric, water and sewer exclu-
sive of storm drainage~
(3) Placing of select fill material of the property during
construction of improvements on Lots 5 and 6;
(4) Improving said property by paving for parking for the
exclusive use of Lots 5 and 6; and
(5) Construction of a travelway across said lot.
PROVIDED, however, that such construction, installation, mainte-
nance, filling and/or improvement shall be subject to the prior
written approval of the County, which approval shall not be unreason-
ably withheld, to insure that the same shall not interfere with the
rights of others in the lands subject to'the easement granted or to
the use of the subject property by the County for drainage control
purposes.
(NOTE: At 11:15 P.M. Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom returned after the
roll was called and the vote recorded.)
Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Minutes: June 12, 1985; October 1
(Afternoon) and December 3 (Afternoon), 1986; March 17, April 1, May 13,
June 3 (Night) and June 17 (Night), 1987.
Mr. Lindstrom had read the minutes of June 12, 1985, pages 18 (beginning
with Item #20) to the end, October 1, 1986 (afternoon), and December 3, 1986
(afternoon), and found them to be in order, except for typographical errors to
be corrected. Mr. Lindstrom said at the October 1, 1986, joint meeting with
the Planning Commission, the Board requested interim reports on the progress
of the Comprehensive Plan. He thinks it would be appropriate to receive a
report soon.
July 15, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 31)
Mr. Bowie had read the minutes of May 13, 1987, pages 14 (beginning with
Item #20) to page 28 (ending at Item #22), and found them in order, except for
typographical errors to be corrected.
Mr. Way had read the minutes of May 13, 1987, pages 28 (beginning with
Item #22) to the end, and June 3, 1987, pages 1 - 9 (ending at Item #9), and
found them in order, except for typographical errors to be corrected.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve
the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Board and the Public.
Mr. Fisher requested an Executive Session on property matters.
Mr. Bowie informed the Board that the Rivanna District representative
(Robert Taylor) on the School Board has resigned; that he will try to find a
replacement in the six weeks before Mr. Taylor leaves.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to authoriz~
staff to advertise that applications will be taken for a Rivanna District
appointee to the School Board with the application deadline being July 30,
1987, and to advertise for a public hearing as required by State Code for
August 5, 1987.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Mr. Bowie said he reported to the Board at the last~meeting that the
Planning District Commission had voted to support the position of the County
and the City on the Route 29 North Study. He further statedhe felt the Boar(
Chairman should write to the chairmen of the other Counties in the Planning
District, asking them to pass similar resolutions, supporting the County's
position on the study.
Mr. Bowie made a motion that the Chairman write a letter enclosing a
of the joint resolution, and asking the other county boards to pass a similar
resolution, addressing it to the Highway Commissioner. Mr. Lindstrom s
the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Mr. Agnor said he received a letter from Dr. Richard Prindle announcing
that he is resigning as Director of the Thomas Jefferson Health District the
beginning of August, to accept a position as a Professor of Internal Medicine
at the University of Virginia. Dr. Prindle asked Mr. Agnor to convey this
message to the Board, and to thank the Board for its support in the past.
Mr. Bowie said he received a complaint from a citizen in his district
concerning pit bull dogs running at-large.
Mrs. Mary Beth Wagner addressed the Board saying she lives in Hollymead.
She is an animal lover and has three small children. She is concerned about
July 15, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 32)
8O
the pit bull, but is not in favor of a County-wide leash law. She stated that
several children in the United States have already been killed by pit bulls,
one child in Virginia, and adults have also been attacked. Mrs. Wagner
explained that one of the reasons the dog is so dangerous is that its jaws
have over 1,000 pounds of pressure and when it decides to attack, it will not
let go unless someone physically stops it; the dog knows where to bite to kill
other animals and people. She explained the general nature of the dog,
commenting that the dog is not satisfied until the person or animal is dead;
the dogs are extremely unpredictable. Mrs. Wagner stated there are a group of
four to seven dogs living on property bordering Hollymead, and one of the dogs
has already mauled a cat in the middle of the Hollymead neighborhood; the dogs
have been seen roaming; the dogs are not confined. She stated the County Dog
Warden has recommended that the dogs be confined. Mrs. Wagner explained that
she and other residents in Hollymead are living in fear. She has spoken with
a lawyer and he believes the Board has the authority to put a ban on this
breed of dogs since it is a threat to public safety. She said she would be
willing to obtain the signatures necessary.
Mr. Fisher asked if her request is for a County-wide ban on a specific
breed of dog, specifically the Pit Bull Terrier. Mrs. Wagner replied affirma-
tively. Mr. Fisher stated the Board has had a number of issues concerning
dogs over the years. The ordinances on the books are basically designed to
protect people from vicious dogs. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John to give the
Board a report on this request at the August 12 meeting.
Mr. Lindstrom asked that the report contain information about mixed breed
dogs because a member of his family gave him .a Pit Bull/Labrador mix. This is
a very friendly dog and has done nothing to hurt anyone.
Mr. Fisher informed Mrs. Wagner the Board will request a report from the
County Attorney as to what the County can legally do, and the discussion will
be on the agenda for August 12. Mrs. Wagner explained that her lawyer told
her that such a ban can be done with anything that is a threat to public
safety.
Mr. Bowie asked Mr. St. John to include in his report whether or not a
special regulation could be adopted so the dogs could be required to be
confined if they could not be banned.
At 11:20 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr.
Lindstrom, to adjourn into Executive Session to discuss acquisition, use, or
sale of public property. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
The Board reconvened into open session at 11:45 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn. With no further business to come before
the Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned.