1986-10-01 adjOctober 1, 1986 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting)
Paq~l
O07
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on October 1, 1986 at 4:00 P.M., Meeting Room ~5, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia, said meeting being adjourned from September 17, 1986.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E.
Fisher, C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT': Mr. J. T. Henley.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John,
County Attorney; and Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Michel.
Mr. David Bowerman, Ms. Norma Diehl, and Mr. Tim
Agenda Item No. 1.
Chairman, Mr. Fisher.
Call to Order.
The meeting was called to order at 4:04 P.M. by the
Agenda Item No. 2. Review Comprehensive Plan Update. Mr. Fisher asked someone from the
staff to bring the Board up to date on the review of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bowerman asked John Horne to update the Board on the Planning Commission schedule
and how they are going about the review. He said that when they get to the discussion of
information, what they are developing and the. direction they are going, then the Commission
should be able to do that.
Mr. Horne said that the Commission had given the Board a tentative work schedule about
three months ago, and they are still attempting to hold to that schedule. They have projec-
ted that from September 1986 through February 1987, they would collect information on county
growth trends and decide the general policies that they would like to implement with the
Comprehensive Plan. Initially, the Planning Commission thought they would break into two
subcommittees in September to do this work. However, they decided to stay as a full Commis-
sion to analyze the structure of the present Plan and to decide such fundamental issues as
the structure of the revised plan. After agreeing on the basic issues, the Commission will
then divide into subcommittees to work out the details of implementing the broad policy
guidelines decided upon by the full Commission. Mr. Horne stated that they are still at the
full Commission stage right now. By the end of October, they hope to have all the informa-
tion necessary for the Commission to decide the current status and the future of growth areas
in the County. By the end of November or early in December, Staff hopes to recommend to the
full Commission what it should do with the broad policy outline of the plan. Then, either at
the end of November or early December, they hope to go to the Commission with the staff
recommendation for what they think the full Commission should do with the broad policy
outline of the plan. In January, they hope to break into subcommittees to do the detailed
work of getting from the policy guidelines to a plan that will implement those broad policy
guidelines. He said it is hard to tell if they are on schedule. They had projected that
subcommittee work would be completed by the end of February, but he thinks they may not meet
that, since the Commission is still meeting together as a full Commission. He hopes it won't
be much beyond February or the end of March to have at least the outlines of the policies and
procedures needed to implement the broad policy guidelines that the full Commission has given
them.
Mr. Fisher asked why the Commission was to split into subcommittees. Mr. Bowerman
replied that staff had suggested the split, thinking that each group could meet more fre-
quently and cover more ground than could the full Commission. One committee will cover land
use issues; the other will deal with transportation and public services. Mr. Bowerman said
that the full Commission has studied the current Comprehensive Plan, adding to and deleting
from the basic goals and objectives stated in the Plan. This review allowed staff an oppor-
tunity to understand how the Commission felt about these current goalS and to expose any
problems. One issue decided during this review was to include more policies to protect
groundwater supplies in the rural areas.
Mr. Bowerman added that the Commission has also been collecting information on where growth
is actually occuring in the County and comparing this with where the current Plan suggests
growth should occur. He commented that the rural areas are absorbing more of the County's
population than the Plan calls for, at the expense of the villages and communities. The
Commission has not yet decided why this is happening.
Mr. Fisher asked if the Commission were studying the growth of commercial and industrial
development in addition to residential growth. Mr. Bowerman answered that presently the
Commission is studying only residential growth. However, they will examine commercial and
industrial growth later.
Mr. Bowerman commented that an interesting figure the Commission came across during
their last work session was a projection of the additional population which existing County
villages and communities could absorb. The estimated growth in population would have filled
just under 1000 additional dwelling units. Mr. Bowerman concluded from this estimate that
perhaps these villages and communities are slated for more growth than is currently planned
for in terms of their absolute size.
Mr. Lindstrom raised a question about the Commission's first report, dated September 16,
in which they had indicated the number of undeveloped parcels and developed parcels and then
estimated the number of lots that could be created. If all the people who own property in
the rural areas were to exercise their development rights, it would be a staggering figure.
Mr. Lindstrom wondered whether the staff had analyzed development in a rural area since 1980
to determine how much of that development occurred on lots that pre-existed the 1980 Zoning
Ordinance, and how much of it was on lots that were approved pursuant to the exemption in the
Zoning Ordinance for subdivision lots in the rural areas.
00.8
October 1, 1986 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting)
Page 2
Mr. Bowerman replied that the staff has not had an opportunity to do a breakdown, but
they have determined that since the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance a total of 1229 addi-
tional lots by right have been created, not by special permit, which is an average of 200+ a
year. Mr. Lindstrom asked if that figure was taken into account in the number of undeveloped
lots in the September 16 report. Are the 8200 and 8500 numbers reflective of this 12297 Mr.
Horne said he was not sure, but that they had taken it off the Comprehensive Information
System, and it would depend on how quickly those parcels have been loaded in. New parcels
are not added to the C.I.S. for some period of time. Mr. Lindstrom asked if that source of
information also tells whether the 1229 lots were created pursuant to the five, two-acre lots
per parcel or pursuant to the many 21 acre parcel divisions allowed by right. Mr. Horne
stated that the 1229 is all of that put together. He said that they have looked at a year or
two trying to decide how many of those lots are just great big tracts that would normally not
be housing lots. It would be reasonable to think that 20 to 30 percent of those may be what
some people would consider the exempt lots that are not what most people particularly think
of as a housing lot. Mr. Lindstrom asked if two to three hundred parcels might be large
non-residential kinds of lots. Mr. Horne said that he thought that would be reasonable to
assume. He said there are new lots being created, but certainly some percentage of those are
not housing lots. Mr. Lindstrom said his understanding is that there have been 900 residen-
tial lots created pursuant to exemption since the ordinance was adopted, and Mr. Horne agreed
that could be true.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if more residential development might have occurred in the urban
area, thinking primarily of the southern part, if the roads had not been as rudimentary as
they are, and utilities were available. Mr. Bowerman said there seems to be a desire on the
part of homeowners to purchase a single-family, attached house on other than a quarter, half
acre or acre lot. And the only place you can find those is outside the "urban area." In
the development reports, that seems to be the type of activity that's going on in the rural
areas. He said he was sure the infrastructure in the southern urban neighborhood presents
problems for development, but so does the topography.
Mr. Michel mentioned that Mr. Horne had said at their last meeting that, unlike most
communities, the real estate values here are very much related to the zoning. And the zoning
on the south side, in addition to the poor roads and lack of utilities, keeps it vacant
because everyone is waiting. People believe the Comprehensive Plan and believe that in the
future it will be much more dense.
Mr. Fisher said he believes that the plan is working. The people are not developing the
southern area in large lots and ruining it for the densities it's supposed to be used for.
Mr. Lindstrom asked about the September 30th staff report. He said he wasn't sure
whether the Planning Commission was going to trash the existing Comprehensive Plan and start
from scratch and go along with something that is perceived by the Daily Progress to be a vote
from the public that people want to live in rural areas. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Commis-
sion wanted to abandon completely the current Plan, its structure and its modifications.
Mr. Bowerman replied that he didn't think that was the case. He emphasized that the
Commission is still just collecting information, and has not gotten specifically to the rural
areas yet. If there is a less than perfect part of the plan, it's the part that deals with
the communities and villages, not the rural areas. If the villages and communities were
growing at the rate that they were projected to grow at, then the rural areas would not have
experienced the population increase they have. The urban areas are absorbing what they are
supposed to, around 38 or 40 percent. What's happening is that Hollymead is not growing at a
significant rate, Crozet isn't, Earlysville, with the exception of Earlysville Forest, isn't,
and none of the other villages have had any meaningful population growth over the last five
years.
Mr. Lindstrom said that all present need to be careful about the words used because of
the way the press perceives the issue. From his perspective, the plan is a guideline that
represents the way the people who live in this area want to use the land in their community.
Unless the plan no longer represents what the majority of the people in that area want, it
hasn't failed. He has sensed broad support for the Comprehensive Plan in all of its attempts
to direct growth and preserve the rural qualities of the area. What may not be working, at
least not very efficiently, are the tools to implement the plan, particularly the Zoning
Ordinance and the Board's policy about utilities. Since the Plan itself embodies what the
public wants, the Commission should direct its attention instead to the tools intended to
carry out the plan.
Ms. Diehl commented that she is committed to the Comprehensive Plan. She belives that
the Commission should do exactly what it plans to do: find out why the villages and communi-
ties aren't working and how they can make them work. The Commission should also keep in mind
that pre-1980 divisions have definitely affected rural development.
Mr. Michel said that, surprisingly, ever since we have had a Comprehensive Plan the
basic goals and principles have all been the same. It has been changed only moderately.
Mr. Fisher inquired if the Tayloe Murphy Institute had supplied the 1985 population
projections. Mr. Horne replied that they were from the State Department of Planning and
Budget. Mr. Fisher said he was really surprised about that number because it doesn't seem to
make any real sense. If Albemarle has been growing at 1800 people a year from 1970 to 1980
as an average, and he has not seen any noticeable down trend in building permits or develop-
ment activity, he would say that the population is closer to 63 or 64 thousand people. The
building permit activity, even at the 2.6 persons per dwelling unit, does not seem to jive
with this. Mr. Horne stated that his staff does feel that the figure is a little low, and
they talked, not with the Department of Planning and Budget, but with Tayloe Murphy about
their projections. They have not done their own analysis, but Mr. Horne feels it's safe to
say that if they ran their own projections, they would be somewhat higher than this. But
they don't feel their figure would be a lot higher, maybe 61 or close to 62 thousand instead
of 60,220, but not 63 to 64 thousand.
October 1, 1986 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting)
Paqe 3
OO9
Mr. Fisher said that he would encourage the Commission to consider the cost of public
services in their examination of future development. He has worried over the years about
what's going to happen to the scattered site developments in existing rural areas, if water
wells and septic fields fail. At least one county in Virginia is already starting to assume
that there is a deferred public cost to every house built in a rural area. People can
sometimes drill a well for less than it would cost to connect to a public system, so they
think it's cheaper to drill the well. But when the well fails, if the public is called upon
to extend the water line, then there is a future cost that the public must bear. He is not
sure how it works or whether it is the right thing to do, but he is thinking in terms of many
of the houses that are built in the rural area away from utilities, as being future public
cost liabilities because they probably are going to require some assistance in the future.
In the direction of the basic plan of trying to encourage the development to occur in clus-
ters where it can be serviced with transportation, schools, libraries, fire stations and
other things as it grows, 20 or 30 years from now when it's more like a city than a county,
the Board will have all of these costs to think about. He has talked to this Board a lot
about private roads which he thinks is only a deferred liability. The County should try to
encourage development that would have the least possible public cost, present and future-. He
asked that the Planning Commission think about this as they review the plan.
In response to Mr. Fisher, Mr. Bowerman said that one of the implications in trying to
make the villages viable would be to provide utilities at some time in the future. Mr.
Fisher pointed out that unwanted development often occurs along the sewer and water lines
running between two centers of growth. Mr. Michel replied that they do not have a solution
to that problem yet. The only thing to do then is provide a package treatment plant, and he
is not ready to get involved in that.
Mr. Bowerman stated that they thought it was important to share with the Board the
general direction and plan for review to get feedback at an early stage. This way the Board
members would not receive a document with which they were unfamiliar or unhappy.
Mr. Lindstrom asked how the Planning Commission intended to involve the public in their
revision of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bowerman replied that originally they had asked for
written comments to be incorporated into the review process. However, the public, mainly
special interest groups, wanted a voice in the whole process. Therefore, the Commission has
opened up every work session. At the end of each session, they allow time for public input
based upon what they have gone through during that work session, and anything else they want
to bring up. Moreover, anyone may submit written comments at any time. The Commission has
not formalized public participation as they move down the road to actually formulating
policies and pulling the plan together. In addition to public work sessions, they will have
open, public meetings where they will review a certain plan element, probably in magisterial
districts. This is in addition to public work sessions. The Commission anticipates ample
opportunity for public input throughout the process well before they get to the public
hearing on the proposed document.
Mr. Lindstrom commented that he had heard that the Commission might use a questionnaire.
Mr. Bowerman said that staff is working on one, trying to develop a questionnaire that would
collect meaningful information. They must also determine how many they would have to send
out to get a realistic response. Someone at the University of Virginia told them that they
need at least 1,000 responses in order to collect meaningful data. They suggested that only
2,000 questionnaires be' sent out, but the Commission and staff do not believe that they will
get 50 percent of them back. Mr. Fisher commented that it would depend on how the question-
naire is designed and how long it is.
Ms. Diehl said that in talking about cluster development and deferred public costs, it
seems to her that if the plan is going to work, there will need to be deferred public costs
or other costs at some point. She stated that the Board needs to recognize that and consider
all the options.
Mr. Lindstrom commented that he doubts that there's much a community can do to stimulate
economic development. In his opinion, the communities that are going to grow usually do not
do much to encourage growth. Others do not grow no matter how many industrial revenue bonds
they issue or how many roads they pave or how many industrial parks they build. The private
sector and intrinsic characteristics of Albemarle and Charlottesville will continue to
provide the incentive and the University looks like it's going to get into the act. Local
government must try to accommodate that other desire of the public: to maintain the rural
quality of the area. Satisfying this desire will become increasingly difficult to do. He
mentioned a panel discussion that University of Virginia President Robert O'Neil and Mayor
Frank Buck participated in about six months ago. Mr. O'Neil commented that the University
was thinking of developing incubator industry space in the community, but that was a
long-range proposal. When he was asked what he meant by long range, he said about five
years. Two weeks ago, Mr. O'Neil said in another meeting that the University now has an
advisory panel that is planning incubator space, not one floor in some building, but in a
building by itself or on land somewhere outside University grounds. According to Mr. O'Neil,
the University planned to begin the project within the next year or so. Mr. Lindstrom said
that Mr. O'Neil indicated that, in the long term, the University was speaking of a high
technical industrial park. These things are in many ways beyond their ability to deal with,
but they are going to have to accommodate the folks who come and meet the demand and try to
do it in a way that accommodates the public's desire to maintain the qualities that most of
them came here for. He thinks that will require much more vigorous local government activity
than in the past, not only providing incentives through utilities and infrastructure enhance-
ment, but also by looking at the Zoning Ordinance a little more carefully.
Mr. Fisher indicated that he was glad that this had been started and hopes that the
Board will be able to comment on the questionnaire before they decide to go with it. He also
asked the Commission that when they come to interim positions along the way that they be
shared with the Board, not necessarily in a meeting, but maybe with staff reports. He thinks
it will help the Board if they know how the revised Comprehensive Plan evolves, rather than
getting it all at one time.
October 1, 1986 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting)
Page 4
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Fisher meant that he wanted the Board to get all of their
staff reports before work sessions? Mr. Fisher replied no, they would like to know about
basic overall land use decisions. Mr. Bowerman said that if one of the set Board meeting
times does not coincide with their adoption of some policies, they could discuss having a
joint meeting.
Mr. Bowerman talked about the schedule and said that they intend to have the Plan for
adoption by the Board in September or October of 1987. He stated that they planned to be
finished with it by the end of July. Mr. Fisher asked that they let them know when it is
ready and they will schedule the public hearings and meetings that they will need to review
it.
Mr. Michel stated that the staff has been very efficient in getting together a tremen-
dous amount of information.
Mr~ Fisher announced a public hearing that the Highway Department has scheduled on
October 30, 1986, at 7:30 p.m. at Albemarle High School to consider the proposed location and
design of Route 29 North from Route 743, Hydraulic Road, to the south end of the bridge over
the South Fork of the Rivanna River. They had been hoping and trying for some weeks to get
the details of the plan so the Board could have a work session on it. He does not know the
status of the plans yet.
Mr. Roosevelt said that they do not have any plans yet for the public hearing. He hopes
to have a set of plans by the first or second week of October. He said he talked briefly
with Mr. Agnor today about trying to have a work session on the 15th of the month at which
time he and staff members from the Culpeper Office will be available. He and Mr. Agnor had
suggested that they bring the subject up at the regular day meeting on the 8th when he will
have a better idea of when they will receive the plans.
Mr. Lindstrom said he felt that local governments are going to be bypassed on major
projects more and more. He stated that this is probably the biggest project that has hap-
pened here in a long time, and it's the first project that he can remember where they haven't
been able to find out the details of the plans until this late in the process.
Mr. Roosevelt replied that he had a contrary opinion. There is nothing in the Code that
requires that local governments have a say in primary road projects, and he thinks that the
Department, recognizing the importance of this project to the local community, has gone out
of its way to include the work staff in field inspections and the preliminary steps. What
has been the biggest problem is political or public pressure to condense or compress the
preliminary engineering time on this project. He said it is the first time in his 25 years
with the Highway Department that a public hearing on a project has been-scheduled before the
field inspections. This was done not to keep information from local governments but in order
to make an advertisement date of early 1988.
Mr. Bowerman suggested December 3, 1986, for another meeting with the Board and it was
decided that they would meet at 4:00 p.m. on that day.
Agenda Item No. 3. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
At 4:54 P.M., Mr. Fisher asked the Board for an Executive Session on two items; one, the
acquisition or disposal or use of public property; and second, on legal matters relating to
the suit, Wood and Wood versus the Board of Supervisors. Motion to this effect was made by
Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Way, a~-d--ca~ried by *~_.._ fo~ing ....... ~~ "~'~.
following recorded vote:
The roll was called and the motion carried with the
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 4.
immediately adjourned.
Adjourn.
The Board reconvened into open session at 7:29 P.M. and
October 1, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
011
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
October 1, 1986 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. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Chairman, Mr. Fisher.
Call to Order.
The meeting was called to order at 7:31 P.M. by the
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to accept the consent
agenda as information. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried
with the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Item 4.1. Copies of the Planning Commission minutes for September 9 and September 16,
1986 were accepted as information.
Agenda Item No. 5. SP-86-56. Church of God. Allow for a day care center in the Church
of God located on St. George Avenue in Crozet zoned R-2 (deferred from September 17, 1986).
Mr. Horne summarized the staff report concerning the Church of God request for a Special
Use Permit for a day care center.
"Petition: The Crozet Church of God petitions the Board of Supervisors to
issue a special use permit for a DAY CARE CENTER (14.2.2.7) on 2.17 acres
zoned R-2 Residential. The property, described as Tax Map 56A1, Section 1,
Parcel 12, is located on the north side of St. George Avenue (Route 1202)
about 1000 feet east of Buck Mountain Road (Route 789) in Crozet. White
Hall Magisterial District.
Character of the Area: The existing church is setback about 350 feet from
the St. George Avenue. This site is in a residential area with lots ranging
from about one-half acre to two acres in area.
Staff Comment: In spring 1985 a site plan was submitted for expansion of
the church building, however, the plan was not pursued. In June, 1986 the
church obtained special use permit approval for a new church building with
day care use near the 1-64/Yancey Mills interchange. In the interim, the
church proposes temporary day care for 35 children at the current site.
The day care center would be operated five days per week. Hot lunches would
be provided. The facility would be licensed by the Virginia Department of
Welfare.
Unless building construction is begun at this new site by June 18, 1988,
that special use permit will expire. Staff has no objection to the church
operating on a permanent basis at the current site. Condition 5 has been
provided should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors deem a
temporary usage is appropriate.
Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
1)
Enrollment to be determined by adequacy of septic system and regula-
tions of Virginia Department of Welfare, not to exceed a maximum
enrollment of 35 children;
2)
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of upgrad-
ing entrance in accordance with comments of May 8, 1985;
3) Compliance with $5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance;
4)
This special use permit is issued to the applicant and is
non-transferrable;
5)
This special use permit and all authority granted hereunder shall
expire on June 18, 1988 unless building construction shall have com-
menced on the new church building authorized under SP-86-27 Crozet
Church of God; or at anytime of expiration or abandonment of SP-86-27;
or 60 days from issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new
church building.
012
October 1, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
Paqe 2
Mr. Horne noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 2, 1986,
unanimously recommended approval of this petition subject to the conditions set out in the
staff's report.
Mr. Fisher opened the Public Hearing and Rev. Don Brown said he had met with the Highway
Department, Health Department and Fire Department and he is in agreement with them to meet
all the state requirements. No one else rose to speak and the Public Hearing was closed.
Mr. Henley offered motion to approve SP-86-56 with the conditions as outlined by the
staff and the Planning Commission. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll was called and
the motion carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing: Virginia Byway Designation - Routes 20 N and
22/231. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 16 and September 23, 1986.)
Mr. Fisher said that this question was brought to the Board of Supervisors. They did
not initiate this action, but they have discussed it and have advertised the Public Hearing
in order to determine the wishes of the people.
Mr. Agnor made the staff report and described the process for designating a Byway.
"At the request of the Piedmont Environmental Council, the Virginia Depart-
ment of Conservation. and Historic Resources has recently completed a visual
and land use evaluation, and determined that Routes 20 North and 22/231 meet
the criteria for inclusion in the Virginia Byways System.
Virginia Byways are existing roads (as opposed to new roads which carry
scenic highway designation) that have important stateWide significance in
that they provide access to natural areas or recreational sites, notable
historic sites or structures with architectural significance. Once a route
has been designated, three things happen:
The road receives official statewide recognition as an element of the
Byway System;
The Department of Highways and Transportation places appropriate
signage along the roadway; and
The official state highway map is modified to delineate the new Byway.
The County currently has three roads designated as a Virginia Byway: Routes
250 West, 20 South and 6. The Comprehensive Plan recommends among others,
that Routes 22/231 be included in the Byway System. While Route 20 North is
not included in the Plan, staff opinion is that it would be an appropriate
addition to the System.
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors notify the Department of
Conservation and Historic Resources of its interest in having these routes
added to the Virginia Byways System, and request the State Highway and
Transportation Board to hold a public hearing regarding these routes'
designation as provided for in Section 33.1-62 of the State Code."
Mr. Fisher then announced that the purpose of the hearing is to request the state to
ke this designation of Virginia Byways. This request does not change zoning.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the designation is for the entire length of these roads in
bemarle County, and Mr. Agnor said "yes." Mr. Lindstrom also asked who has the privilege,
than members of the Board, of requesting the rezoning along these roads for the Coun-
ty's scenic overlay district. Mr. Horne replied that it is not clear because of the way the
is written. Mr. Fisher described the way it was done on Route 250 West, and said
it was done by one lady contacting every property owner along that route.
Ms. Imhoff, of Piedmont Environmental Council, pointed out that P.E.C. made this request
behalf of residents in the area along the routes. The Highway Department suggested that
designation be extended all the way to Route 33 in Orange County, and now a number of
e and Madison County residents are seeking designation of Routes 20 and 231 all the way
Sperryville. She mentioned that it does a lot of things such as helping with obtaining
.tion easements. It helps counties obtain some grants more easily and it helps with
Lscretionary funds.
Mr. Archibald Craig~ a Keswick resident, spoke on behalf of the application for designa-
of Routes 22 and 231 as a byway. He mentioned that it is an old road bed as far back
as the 1740's. He said it is on the perimeter of the Davidson clay, which is one of the
finest soils in the State of Virginia. He talked about some of the famous people who have
acreage along these routes, and said it is the roadbed of presidents who have traveled
here and also the roadway for enemies. He gave a historical background of some of the
eople who have traveled that route. He also pointed out that the mountains are visible
long the whole route, and he said the purpose of the request is to preserve and protect the
aesthetic, ecological, economic and historical resource that is in this area.
Mrs. Robert Standish, President of the Keswick Garden Club, said her members are very
concerned that Routes 22 and 231 and 20 North should be preserved as scenic byways. She said
that many of them live along these routes and she described the scenery in the area. She
October 1, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
-013
stated that they wanted to preserve this for people to enjoy. She mentioned that they are
presently working to improve the Keswick Post Office. She urged the supervisors to rE
to the State Highway Department that these roads be included as scenic byways of the state.
Ms. Judy Vermillion, a resident of Route 20 North, said that Route 20 was one of the
first three roads to run through Albemarle County. She was representing approximately 40
people, and she said their names would be passed on to Mr. Bowie. She stated.that a majority
of these people were property owners on Route 20. She encouraged the supervisors to desig-
nate Route 20 North as a scenic byway, because she feels the entire area will benefit from
it. She hopes that it will prompt the Highway Department to improve the danger spots on the
road. She noted that Montpelier is on Route 20, so she can foresee more traffic there. She
also hopes people along the road will "spruce it up."
Mr. Jim Carswell, a resident of Route 22, said he and his wife have lived on this road
approximately 30 years and he always gets a thrill driving down Route 22. He said it is a
beautiful spot, and they want to make their point very strongly to the Board. He asked the
people who supported this to raise their hands.
Mr. Dave Emmett, a resident of the Franklin Subdivision, a mile north of the intersec-
tion of Routes 20 and 250, said he has children in the Stony Point School, and they spend a
lot of time traveling on Route 20. He stated that it is still a pleasure to drive even
though it is winding and demands alertness. He is also chairman of Alert, which is a coali-
tion of homeowner associations primarily on the eastern side of town, and has participated in
numerous discussions about scenic highway designations and Virginia byway designation for
Route 20. He said they have tried to understand the implications and meaning of such a
designation and he has spoken with people along Route 20, in particular the residents of
Franklin Subdivision, and only in one instance has he heard any persistent reservation
expressed about the possible constraints it may have on the property owner. In no instance
did he find anyone who felt that Route 20 was not deserving of such a designation. He found
that surprising since it is so close to development in the Pantops area. He thought this was
encouraging and urged the Board of Supervisors to pursue this matter even to the level of
County Scenic Highway designation.
Ms. Marjorie Jordani urged the Board to designate Routes 20, 22 and 231 as scenic
byways. She said she is the fourth generation to live on the property on Route 20 between
Barboursville and Stony Point. She is not aware of the historical significance of Route 20,
but said she had lived there for eleven years. She mentioned that the road has been improved
since she has lived there, and thinks that the historical significance could be that the
founding fathers did use portions of Route 20 to go to Washington and Philadelphia. She
mentioned also that Montpelier is on Route 20 and the Barboursville estate and many lovely
homes. She said that she hoped some of the curves would not be taken out of the road. She
understands the road is winding because it was built to make it easier for horses to pull
their wagons to town. She pointed out also that this designation will not cost anything, but
could bring many benefits. She also concurs with Routes 22 and 231 because she thinks they
are lovely along their entire length.
Mr. Roy Patterson spoke for Citizens for Albemarle in the absence of Martha Seldin. He
said that Martha had brought the concept of scenic highways and byways to Albemarle County
many years ago. He said that if she were not ill, she would be there. Citizens for
Albemarle endorses the proposals before the Board. He stated that designation of these roads
as scenic byways will preserve the beauty of the countryside. He urged the Board to pursue
this and approve the proposals.
The Public Hearing closed at 8:08 p.m. and Mr. Fisher brought the matter to the Board.
Mr. Bowie said it was obvious from the many people he has been in contact with that
there is no objection at all with Routes 22 and 231 becoming scenic byways. On Route 20
North he did have an objection and that was the only input he had. He then organized an
informal phone bank to get as many opinions as he could. He, personally contacted 36 resi-
dents, and 35 supported it. The total was 106 in favor to 24 opposed, and it satisfied him
that the people who live on Route 20 favor it. He noted, however, that some very important
factors were raised such as the safety factor. He said he had met with representatives of
the Highway Department and they have told him that two very dangerous spots on Route 20,
Bailey's Curve and a single lane bridge north of Stony Point, are scheduled to be fixed in
the nex~ cycle and will be fixed whether or not this is designated. A bad curve near Park
Hill was not in the list but they have started the necessary steps to have it fixed. The
other factor was traffic. Mr. Bowie stated that statewide designation of a scenic highway
does not generate traffic, in fact it tends to decrease the commercial or truck traffic. He
thinks that traffic will increase whether it is designated or not because of people traveling
from Montpelier and the Barboursville Vineyards to Monticello, etc. He feels that the desig-
nation would improve the safety because they may get some discretionary funds and/or grants.
Mr. Fisher asked who is supposed to hold a Public Hearing on this matter, and Mr. Agnor
said that the State Highway Commission will not hold a hearing unless it is requested by a
local governing body. He explained that the Board has to indicate to the Department of
Conservation and Historical Resources that it supports the designation and indicate to the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation that it will be approved if they so
designate.
Mr. Fisher said that he is very pleased in seeing something that is apparently spontane-
ous and generated by the people involved. He said that the work they had done was obvious,
and he is very much in favor and will support motion for approval. He hopes that all the
state agencies will bless it.
Mrs. Cooke wanted to assure everyone that she is very much in support of the designation
of the byways and has never opposed it.
Mr. Bowie offered motion to approve a request from the Piedmont Environmental Council to
include Route 20 North and Routes 22/231 in the Virginia Byways system. Mr. Lindstrom
014
October 1, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
seconded the motion.
:
Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded
: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
: None.
Agenda Item No. 7. Ordinance to Vacate a Certain Plat of Phases Two and Three of the
Ie Square Subdivision (Deferred from September 10, 1986).
Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum dated September 26, 1986:
At your September 10, 1986 meeting, staff recommended that you defer action
on resolution of sidewalk reconstruction in Village Square until October 1,
1986 with the understanding that construction would hopefully have begun by
October 1. Our Director of Engineering has been in contact with the attor-
ney for the developer and learned that a contract for reconstruction of the
sidewalks is expected to be signed on Friday, September 26, 1986, and actual
construction is to commence on Monday, September 29, 1986~
Staff would recommend that the Board of Supervisors authorize the calling of
the bond in order to proceed with completion of this work in the event the
developer is unable to fulfill its obligation of providing acceptable
sidewalks in Village Square."
Mr. Bowie questioned the starting date, and Mr. Michael Armm, County Engineer, confirmed
~hat the work has not begun. Mr. Bowie said he felt when this first came up that it should
,er have been allowed to go so far. He supported the recommendation from Mr. Armm.
Mr. Bowie offered motion to authorize the County Engineer to call in the bonds as Phase
Two, and Three of Village Square in order to complete the sidewalk work. Mr. Lindstrom
~conded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 8. Approval of Minutes: October 16 and December 18, 1985.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve the minutes of October 16 (pages 11 - 19) and
)ecember 18 (pages 1 - 8). Mr. Way seconded the motion. Role was called and the motion
~rried with the following recorded vote:
: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way
: None.
Agenda Item No. 9. Other Items Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public.
Mr. Agnor announced that the Virginia Association of Counties Legislative Committees
be meeting in the County Office Building on Saturday and Sunday of this weekend to
~onsider requests from counties regarding their legislative program to the state association.
asked for direction from the Board as to whether they wish the three items that were sent
VACO to be presented by staff or by members of the Board. He understands that Mr. Bowie
attend the Saturday meeting on the legislative changeover to have drug proceeds from
zures be used for local drug enforcement activity. There are two other items for a 1:00
on Sunday afternoon regarding the "family division" clarification and the impact fees
the development of land which need to be presented to the VACO Committee. Mr. Fisher is
g this committee and cannot present it himself.
Mr. Fisher announced that the same committee that is meeting at 1:00 p.m. in this
is considering recommending to the Virginia Association of Counties that it take a
~sition supporting the statewide ban on the use of phoSphate detergents. He said that is a
~ntative position of the committee, and they are expecting some discussion of the matter.
Mr. Henley said that he had received about 18 letters from people in the Crozet area
the phosphate ban.
Mrs. Cooke said she had received quite a few letters supporting the phosphate ban. She
:ked if there is a bulletin that they could use to respond to this. Mr. Fisher said he had
:ted Mr. Norris to prepare a five or six page detailed analysis of the pros and cons.
· Agnor said that information will be in this week's mailing to the Board.
Mr. Agnor reminded the Board that there will be a joint meeting with the School Board on
he afternoon of October 15 at 3:30 p.m.. Mr. Overstreet and he will prepare a proposed
for that meeting, and he asked for specific items that the Board would like discussed.
. Fisher said he thought it would be a good time to review the building and site plans for
~iwether Lewis School.
Mr. Way asked for a brief summary of the opening of the school year in terms of enroll-
, etc. Mrs. Cooke asked for any progress taking place at the Vocational Technical
~enter, such as enrollment, etc.
Mr. Lindstrom said that the Clean Water Action people have offered to make a presenta-
tion in relation to the phosphate ban. Mr. Agnor responded that they have been in contact
him, but no one had offered to appear. Mr. Lindstrom stated that if the Board would
October 1, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 5
like a presentation, he would contact the person who contacted him, and try to get it sched-
uled for next Wednesday. It was decided that Mr. Lindstrom would make the contact and the
Clerk would schedule the time.
Agenda Item No. 10. Adjourn.
Board, the meeting was adjourned.
At 8:35 p.m., with no further business to come before the