1986-06-18. 079
June 18, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
_(PaGe 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
June 18, 1986, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T.
Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R.
St. John; and County Planner, John T. P. Horne.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Mr. Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by the Chairman,
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mr. Way moved to approve Item 4.1 and accept the
remaining items on the Consent Agenda as information. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Item 4.1 Revised Resolution to take Greenbrier Drive into the Secondary System. As
requested by the County engineer the following resolution was adopted by the vote shown
above:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and
is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject
to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the
following road:
Greenbrier Drive
Beginning at station 0+00, end of previous dedication, thence in a
southeasterly direction 879.00 feet to station 8+79, the end of the
cul-de-sac.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 60 foot unobstructed
right-of-way and drainage easement along this requested addition as recorded
by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County
in Deed Book 779, page 403, Deed Book 867, page 30 and Deed Book 876, page
80.
Item 4.2.
information.
A copy of the Planning Commission minutes for June 3, 1986, was received as
Item 4.3. Letter dated June 12, 1986, from Ms. Patricia L. Lambeth, Special Assistant
to Governor Baliles re: Notification to State Officials Regarding Drought Conditions, was
received as information:
"Governor Baliles has asked me to thank you for your letter of June 5
advising of the drought conditions existing in Albemarle County.
The Governor has suggested that I bring your letter to the attention of
appropriate state officials. You may be assured every effort will be made
to ensure that all areas of aid will be actively pursued."
Agenda Item No. 5. SP-86-25. Innisfree Village. To allow for group residences for
handicapped persons, office addition, community center and machine shed. Property located
one mile from Brown's Cove, west of Route 668. Tax Map 14, Parcel 10 (part of) and 3 (part
of). Zoned RA. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 3 and 10,
1986.)
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission had not acted and this petition would have to be
de~erred. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to defer the petition to July 16, 1986. Mr. Way
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 6.
June 4, 1986).
SP-86-09.
VEPCO (request for a microwave tower) (Deferred from
Mr. Horne informed the Board members that they have a letter dated June 11, 1986, to
Mr. Thomas Jr. Michie, Jr. from Mr. Carroll Neblitt, of Virginia Power, which attempts to
address some of the concerns that were expressed by the Board of Supervisors at the previous
meeting. He called attention to the first page of the letter which describes Virginia
Power's perception of the needed level of reliability and the approximate percentage of
telecommunications circuits that are used for monitoring and operation of the electrical
0'80
June 18, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Pag~ 2)
system. Mr. Horne noted that on the second page of the letter there is a discussion of the
relative percentage of the circuits that are used to communicate with Richmond, versus power
stations, substations and other western division offices which estimates that approximately
75 percent of the circuits are used to communicate within the western division. He said that
on the second page, also, is a discussion of the full 600 channel capacity that is being
requested, and Virginia Power's reasoning for needing that additional capacity over and abow
what would be used initially at these offices. On the final page of the letter, Mr. Horne
pointed out that there is a discussion of the estimated costs of using a southern net fiber
optic system for communications between the Charlottesville office and the Richmond head-
quarters. Mr. Horne told the Board that the staff has reviewed the letter, but not having
any particular expertise in telecommunications, the staff really does not have any analysis
of the letter. Mr. Horne said that the applicant may want to expand on his presentation of
the letter's contents.
Mr. Fisher told Mr. Horne that he has reviewed the letter and it appears to him that,
based on the information that was presented at the previous meeting and the information in
the letter, there are a number of options that are open to the applicant for solving the
communication problems. He asked if Mr. Horne had made the same assessment. Mr. Horne
responded that there are a number of options open, but, in the staff's opinion, a cost
benefit analysis by the applicant and the Board of Supervisors is necessary to determine the
relative costs and benefits of those options.
Mr. Fisher said that the only cost estimates that the Board has received are those from
the applicant. He asked if Mr. Horne has been able to judge the cost estimates to determine
whether or not they are creditable estimates. Mr. Horne answered that he has not been able
to judge the cost estimates.
Since Board members had no questions for Mr. Horne, Mr. Fisher recognized Mr. Michie.
Mr. Michie said that he would summarize his other presentation to the Board, since Mr.
Way was not present at that meeting. He stated that two representatives of Virginia Power,
Mr. Richard Gottlieber, Manager of Telecommunications, and Mr. Carroll Neblitt, Director of
Telecommunications for Engineering, were with him at this meeting. Mr. Michie stated that
the need for the facility obviously serves the purpose of transmitting routine data, but
because Virginia Power is a public service corporation, he feels that those things that are
different from other businesses should be stressed. He said that it is important for the
facility to restore power failures promptly by directing reallocation of power around anothe~
route and to direct repair crews to the right area. He added that Mr. Fisher had pointed out
that perhaps there is a small percentage of the facility's time involved with power failures,
and Mr. Michie said that it is less than one-half of one percent. He said, though, that the
letter states that the facility is part of a network that does serve an important function of
monitoring the flow of electrical power so that when there is a failure, it is known immedi-
ately through the transmission of this data to the computer. From that point of view, Mr.
Michie said that the facility will not just be for business convenience, but it is serving an
important function of providing service to the County's constituents. He emphasized that
this is a public service factor that is not present with other businesses that may request a
tower. He added that this is the basic need of the facility, but the Board will have to
weigh the question of the visual impact to 1-64 because Charlottesville is an important
tourist area. He reminded Board members that at the previous meeting, he had circulated
pictures that had the pole scaled from various directions. He asked where those pictures
were at this time, and Mr. Horne indicated that they were available at this meeting. Mr.
Michie then suggested that the pictures be shown to Mr. Way. Mr. Michie stated that one of
the pictures showed a pole at Virginia Power's regional headquarters in Northern Virginia
that was identical to the proposed pole.
Mr. Fisher commented that not all of the pictures have the tower drawn on them. Mr.
Michie agreed with Mr. Fisher and said that he drove on each side of 1-64 and, because the
road goes up and down hills and there are cuts through the hills, it is not possible to see
the tower except from certain points. He also said that the road bends away from the tower
so that the tower will not be in the middle of the line of sight, except in one place. He
commented that when someone is leaving 1-64 westbound and going up the ramp to Fifth Street,
the proposed tower will be in the line of vision. He has suggested to Virginia Power, and hE
thinks that it is implicit in the staff's recommendation, that the exact location of the pole
be subject to the Board's approval. He said that the pole will still work mechanically if it
is relocated on the site.
Another point that Mr. Michie brought out was that, even when the pole is seen, it will
not be viewed against the sky because of the mountains. He thinks this will make it less
likely to be obtrusive on the landscaping. He is not saying that the tower will be a thing
of beauty, but it is a single pole as opposed to a series of poles.
Mr. Michie then talked about the alternatives, because the Board will have to weigh the
adverse visual impact against the financial alternatives. He said that there are six or
seven alternatives, but most of them are not practical. One alternative would require a 200
foot pole be placed on VEPCO property at the intersection of Hydraulic Road and the Route
29/250 Bypass. He pointed out that there are a lot of people and traffic in that area. He
next mentioned Carter's Mountain, but the problem there is whether or not a long term lease
can be secured. He said that it is not wise to put up a $200,000 structure on a piece of
land that cannot be leased for more than ten years. He said that this reduces the alterna-
tives down to an economic alternative of leasing lines, which is many times more expensive on
an annual basis than this proposal. He thinks that the Board of Supervisors has the respon-
sibility of weighing the visual impact of the single pole versus asking Virginia Power to
undergo a very significant greater expense. He said that the Board should bear in mind that
the expense is passed to the citizens. He pointed out that this is a public service utility
and its profit is regulated by the State Corporation Commission. If Virginia Power's costs
are increased, it is passed on to the consumers. He added that he hoped that the Board woul~
support the staff's position and approve this Special Use Permit. He mentioned that Mr.
Fisher had asked a very good question concerning the southern net fiber optic system. He
said that with all of the publicity given to this system, he thinks that it is a natural
081
June 18, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
thing to consider it. He stated, though, that it does not seem to be an economically viable
approach, and is not very attractive. He next said that Mr. Neblitt would answer any ques-
tions the Board may have about this alternative.
Mr. Neblitt stated that he would not review the letter in detail, but he wanted to poin~
out that when the initial evaluation was done, it was done on the basis of individual ser-
vice, rather than the consideration of bulk facilities, and the cost was approximately
$250,000 per year. Because of the higher cost relative to microwave, Virginia Power's
representatives did not think it was necessary to evaluate the use of bulk facilities at that
time. He said, however, Senator Michie had pointed out that it is a valid question. He has
at the Board's suggestion, investigated the use of the southern net and the prices are
approximately $150,000 to $180,000 per year.
Mr. Fisher asked how this price relates to Virginia Power's total budget. Is it one-
tenth of one percent of the budget? Mr. Neblitt asked if Mr. Gottlieber could answer Mr.
Fisher's question, and he could not.
Mr. Fisher then asked if Mr. Neblitt thought that his electrical rates would change one
way or another if this microwave tower is built or other alternatives are used. It seems to
Mr. Fisher that the estimated cost is a small portion of Virginia Power's total budget. Mr.
Neblitt replied that it is a small portion of the overall budget. However, Mr. Neblitt said
that Virginia Power representatives feel that it is their obligation to take the best ap-
proach. Mr. Fisher agreed, but he said that the Board has to weigh whether or not the cost
to Virginia Power should override other concerns for other people, such as how much it is
worth to people not to see the tower. He then stated that Virginia Power has not given the
Board any information as to how this project will affect rate structures. Mr. Neblitt
replied that he does not know how the costs of the different options relate to Virginia
Power's total budget figures, but he is sure that it is a small percentage, and would guess
that for the Western division, it is somewhat less than one percent. He then pointed out
that when all of the alternatives were figured for bulk circuit use, which included the
southern net, the lowest option that could be developed is approximately $150,000 per year.
This will still require a one time expenditure of approximately $80,000. In sun%mary, Mr.
Neblitt said that representatives of Virginia Power still feel that the microwave tower is
the best alternative, and the 153 foot pole at the new headquarters office will be the least
cost for microwave facilities.
Mr. Fisher reminded Mr. Neblitt that he had asked at the previous meeting what Virginia
Power's recommendation would be for the next option if this request is denied. Mr. Neblitt
answered that the Carter's Mountain alternative is the next most desirable option for Vir-
ginia Power.
Mr. Fisher then asked if the options are a roof top antenna on the new headquarters
building versus a small tower on Carter's Mountain. Mr. Neblitt replied, "yes." He said the
tower on Carter's Mountain would be 80 to 100 feet tall.
Since there were no further questions from Board members, and no one else had any
statements to make, Mr. Fisher closed the Public Hearing and put the matter before the Board
Mr. Fisher stated that because of the costs of the various alternatives available to
Virginia Power to solve its communication problems, and if there would be an effective
difference in the rate structure that will be charged to the people who use the system, he
might be convinced that one system is better than another. It is his feeling, however, that
the comparison of the costs, while one might be more expensive than another, will be so small
in the total budget for Virginia Power that it won't make any difference in the rates that
the citizens pay. He believes that what needs to be considered is whether or not there will
be a substantial difference in the service level that people will receive. He is not con-
vinced that these options will not work equally as well. He cannot believe that a 153 foot
tower should be built beside 1-64 where a half million tourists a year, as well as local
residents, will see it just for a hypothetical savings to the consumers. He thinks the best
option is to put the tower on Carter's Mountain, where other towers are located, or use the
leased lines option. He said that the Board cannot make this business decision for Virginia
Power, but he reminded Virginia Power representatives that this request comes to the Board
with a unanimous recommendation for denial from the Planning Commission. He stated that
occasionally the Board will override the Commission's recommendations, but it is done with
serious concern as to how the decision is justified. He believes that Virginia Power has
other options, and he cannot vote for a microwave tower beside 1-64.
Mr. Way asked Mr. Horne if the letter from Virginia Power has changed the staff's
recommendation. Mr. Horne replied that the letter does not change the staff's recommenda-
tion, and he would guess that the letter would not affect the Planning Commission's recommen-
dation. He pointed out, though, that the Commission did not have the information in the
letter available when it made its decision.
Mr. Way said that he could not understand everything that is in the letter because of
the technicalities. He thinks, however, that Virginia Power has looked at a lot of alterna-
tives, and the public benefit that will be derived from having this tower is extremely
important. He is sorry that he was not at the previous meeting when this issue was dis-
cussed, but based on the report that the Board received, he probably would have supported the
tower that night. He added that he will support the tower, now.
Mr. Henley commented that he can support the tower, because he thinks that other things
beside 1-64 need to be considered. He mentioned the wastewater treatment plant and the Joint
Security Complex that can be seen from 1-64. He does not think that the microwave tower will
have any more of a visual impact than these other things.
Mr. Lindstrom said he cannot support the application because he thinks that the costs
and benefits need to be weighed. He said that how the costs and benefits are weighed makes
it a political decision and a legitimate legislative decision. In his opinion, however, this
is the second tower recently that could have been located on Carter's Mountain where most of
082
June 18, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Paqe 4)
these facilities have been concentrated. He said that the first tower that the Board permit-
ted to be constructed away from Carter's Mountain was for the private convenience of the
applicant. He believes that in this case there is a stronger argument that Virginia Power is
a public organization, and the costs will be passed on to the consumer. He also mentioned
that Virginia Power has alternatives, and he thinks that the value of preserving the
aesthetic quality of a portion of the County that is used by a number of local citizens as
well as tourists is significant. He said that he cannot support this application. He is
concerned that there will be more requests such as this one, when the people who have these
kinds of facilities detect a change in the perceptions of the Board. He does not think that
this tower is a public necessity, and there are other options available.
Mr. Way then offered motion to approve SP-86-09 subject to the following conditions:
e
3.
4.
5.
Compliance with Sections 4.10.2.2, 4.10.3.1 and 5.1.12 of the Zoning
Ordinance;
Pole and antenna not to exceed 160 feet in height AGL;
Staff approval of pole location;
Building official approval;
Submit copies of FCC, FAA and other approvals.
Mr. Henley seconded the foregoing motion.
following recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried by th~
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley and Way.
Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-86-18. Free Union Subdivision (Shelter Associates). To create
twelve lots from 100.13 acres. Request different configuration than by-right development.
Located on north side of Routes 609 and 665, west side of Route 601, west of Free Union. Tar
Map 29, Parcels 4A and 4B. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 3
and June 10, 1986.)
Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows:
"Character of the Area: This property is presently vacant. It is comprised
of both rolling pasture land and wooded areas. To the east of this property
is a more developed residential area (Free Union) and other adjacent areas
are a mixture of residential and rural land uses.
Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: The plan shows this property in Rural
Area I. The recommended density for property within the South Fork Rivanna
River Watershed is one dwelling unit per ten acres.
Special Use Permit Criteria: Since this petition does not propose an
increase over the number of lots allowed 'by right', the criteria for the
review of special use permits (Section 10.5.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance) has
not been applied. These two existing parcels have sufficient development
rights and acreage to result in a total of twelve lots: 10 lots under 21
acres, and two lots a minimum of 21 acres each. No additional development
rights exist for these lots to allow any future subdivision.
This redivision requires a special use permit because of the manner in which
the lot lines are to be changed. Based on the Board of Supervisors determi-
nation on the Hopewell Subdivision, each new (redivided) lot must contain at
least two acres from an existing lot. This proposal does not create seven
lots from within parcel 4A or five lots from within parcel 4B. The criteria
for review of this special use permit is whether this proposed redivision
serves the public interest to an equivalent or greater extent than a subdi-
vision 'by right'.
Staff Comment: The applicant proposed to create a total of 12 lots: Lots 1
through 8 and 21 acre Parcel A are to be served by a new public road from
Route 609; Lots 9 and 10 are to be served by a joint driveway from Route
665; Parcel B is to access from Route 601. Lots 1 through 10 range from 3.0
to 5.1 acres; Parcel A is 21.0 acres and Parcel B is 28.9 acres.
The applicant has submitted:
'This special use permit application is being sought for the
allocation of existing rights of division among two contiguous
parcels, not as a request for increased rights of subdivision. By
right, parcel 4B (shown cross hatched on the plans) can be divided
into five lots. The resulting layout would produce a strip of two
to four acre lots along Route 601. Such a plan would limit the
division of Parcel 4A to five lots (presumably along Route 609)
and as many twenty-one acre parcels as can gain sufficient access
to the state roads. This would be poor use of the land as well as
an unsightly design when viewed from the roads. A similar method
was used by the current owner on the east side of Route 601
creating a strip of lots on the road blocking larger open parcels
behind them to the east.
Shelter Associates' plan preserves the existing rural nature of
the parcels by limiting the development of the open spaces,
instead using the sloping woodland for residences while establish-
ing a vineyard on Parcel A and leaving Parcel B open for pasture.
The lots, at an average of approximately 4.8 acres and running
083
June 18, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Paqe 5)
perpendicular to the state road, limit their visual impact on
surrounding properties and roads.
In order to accommodate this plan, the existing ten rights of
subdivision must be allocated to the sum of the parcels rather
than to each of the existing parcels.~
Based on buildable area (exclusive of critical slopes and one hundred year
flood plain)~ 12 lots could be created 'by right'. Of course this cannot be
conclusively proven without engineering and soil scientist studies of the
'by right' subdivision. Therefore, this Special Use Permit is not a
request for either additional Lots or decreased lot size.
Staff opinion is that the proposed subdivision better reflects the public
interest than 'by right' development for the ~ollowing reasons:
1. These ten smaller lots create more logical building sites.
This proposal creates safer access by resulting in a reduced number of
entrances.
e
This proposal creates two larger lots (minimum 21 acres) which preserve
the more logical agricultural area.
Preliminary Health Department approval and County Engineer preliminary
approval of road plans have not been received, therefore the Commission must
review the subdivision plat for this proposed development. The County
Engineer has stated 'I see no reason why this development could not proceed
with additional engineering design. The total impervious area is less than
five percent of the total parcel area, and therefore, a runoff control
permit is not required.' This property will drain into the proposed supple-
mental watersupply impoundment of Buck Mountain Creek. The Watershed
Management Official has stated 'the proposed development concept appears to
be suited to the site. Adequate drainfield sites should be provided for on
each lot and verified by the Health Department.' The Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation has commented 'Route 609 is currently tolerable.
Any additional traffic on Route 609 will make it non-tolerable. As long as
no more traffic is generated from this site than allowed by right, the
Department has no problem with this request.'
Staff recommends approval of this petition, subject to the following condi-
tions:
The subdivision shall be limited to 12 lots, two of which are a minimum
of 21.0 acres, and shall be in general accordance with the plan by
Shelter Associates, Ltd. dated May 23, 1986;
2. Best management practices should be utilized during construction. The
Watershed Management Official will review the Soil Erosion Plan.
The applicant has submitted the following information on special use permit
criterion ~1, 2, 3 and 9:
1. The size, shape, topography and existing vegetation of the ....
The combined parcels total 100.13 acres, approximately half in woodland
and half in pasture. The pasture area lie along the ridge running
southwest to northeast between Routes 609 and 601 and down into a deep
hollow to its southeast and northeast. The northern slopes of the
ridge are in mature hardwoods forming a complete canopy to the stream.
The north forcing slopes across the creek in the southeast hollow are
also in mature hardwoods. The soils in these wooded areas, Ashe loam
and Parker, extremely stony loam, are best suited for forestal use.
The Hayesville loam on top of the ridge is suitable for cropland,
consistent with its proposed use.
2. The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or forestal ....
See map and tables on file.
3. The historic commercial agricultural or forestal uses of the ....
0
The subject property has been used for a limited cattle operation.
There also is a sawmill on the southwestern ridge. Upon approval of
the subdivision, the sawmill will be removed.
With respect to applications for special use permits for land ....
a. The amount and quality of existing vegetative cover as ....
The hardwood forests are populated with mature red, black,
and chestnut oak, poplar, hickory, and copper beech trees.
The northern slopes of both ridges, being well covered offer
reasonable silt and sediment filtration, while the southern and
southeastern slopes in pasture show signs of erosion, due in large
part to overgrazing. The stream beds and slopes also suffer from
erosion due to cattle traffic.
b. The extent to which existing vegetative cover would be ....
0.8 4
June 18, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Paqe 6)
dm
Only selected trees will be removed for driveway and house siting
purposes. No "clear cutting" of any areas will be allowed.
The amount of impervious cover which will exist after development;
The 18 foot-wide subdivision road, residential driveways and roofs
will be the only impervious surfaces added and will not exceed 2.5
percent of the total acreage.
The proximity of any paved (pervious or impervious) area ....
No septic system, road, or structure will be located within 100
feet of any stream.
The type and characteristics of soils including ....
Refer to the Soil Types and Percent Slopes map and Table 11 from
the Soil Survey of Albemarle County by the U.S.D.A. herein. The
proposed layout does not create any problems more severe than
those faced by development by right.
The percentage and length of all slopes subject to ....
No residences will be constructed on slopes of 25 percent or
greater. This plan allows for construction on flatter grades than
that by right due to the overall steepness of existing Parcel 4B
and the availability of more gradual slopes on Parcel 4A's ridge
tops. The location of the subdivision road on the flat ridge top
will minimize erosion and improve the prospects for easily
maintained, strong vegetative cover.
The estimated duration and timing of the construction ....
The development phase, including road construction and cleanup
will take approximately 90 days. The construction of residences
should not take more than three years, subject of course, to the
overall economic climate during the period. These constraints do
not differ from those faced by right.
The deqree to which original topography or veqetative ....
No changes of any sort have been made in anticipation of this
application.
The extent to which the standards of Chapter 19.1 et seq .....
Require periodic inspection and/or maintenance;
Are susceptible to failure or overflow for runoff...
No additional artificial devices should be necessary as a
result of this plan's layout."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 3, 1986, unanimously
recommended approval subject to the two conditions in the staff's report, with COndition
No. 2 changed to read "shall" instead of "should".
Mr. Horne discussed the staff report with the Board and pointed out the area on the map
He said that the proposal is to create two entrances to the property, with the smaller
entrance located off of Route 665 near the Free Union Baptist Church Cemetery. He said the
major entrance would be near the northwest side of the ravine area and would allow a road to
run along the ridge top which would avoid some of the steep areas and preserve some of the
visible open area, Mr. Horne stated that if this proposal was compared to a division by
right, that this would be a more logical way to develop the site, largely because of the
severe topographical restraints. He said that if lots were divided by right, the lots would
be forced along an inappropriate terrain. He said that in this case, there is a tree line
and some visual protection from the view of the road. Mr. Horne went on to say that the
proposal is for the lots to be put on a ridge top that will be more appropriate for building
sites.
Mr. Fisher asked if the blue lines on the map represent perennial streams. Mr. Horne
answered that analysis is still being dOne by the staff as to whether these are intermittent
or perennial streams. At this point, Mr. Fisher questioned another line on the map, and Mr.
Horne replied that in certain portions of the area, the stream could probably be considered
intermittent. He added that the Watershed Management Official is assisting the staff to mak~
that determination. He said that the final decision would be made when the subdivision plat
is submitted, and the appropriate setbacks will be imposed at that time.
Mr. Fisher questioned whether the strip lots on Route 601 can be done with the stream
bed there. Mr. Horne replied that, in his opinion, the majority of the lots could be locate(
on Route 601. However, he said that it is hard to determine this at this time. Mr. ~Fisher
asked if Mr. Horne's recommendation is for approval of this request, and Mr. Horne answered
that the staff's recommendation is for approval. He went on to say that the Planning
Conmmission recommended approval unanimously on June 3, 1986, with conditions.
Mr. Fisher then asked if the applicant wished to make comments. Mr. Bruce Gordon, of
Shelter Associates, said that he had no comments, but he would be glad to answer questions.
Since there were no other comments or questions about the application, Mr. Fisher closed the
Public Hearing and put the matter before the BOard.
June 18, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
085
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Henley to approve SP-86-18
subject to the following conditions of the Planning Commission:
The subdivision shall be limited to twelve lots, two of which are a
minimum of 21.0 acres, and shall be in general accordance with the plan
by Shelter Associates, Ltd., dated May 23, 1986;
2. Best Management Practices shall be utilized during construction. The
Watershed Management Official will review the Soil Erosion Plan.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-86-26. Crozet Church of God. To allow for a church and parson-
age on 5.015 acres zoned RA. Property on the south side of Route 824, west of Interstate 64
near Yancey Mills. Tax map 55, Parcel 96A. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on June 3 and June 10, 1986.)
Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows:
"Character of the Area: This site consists of a prominent knoll with a
Virginia Power transmission line crossing to the rear. Other properties in
the area are rural in character with the closest dwelling over 1,000 feet
away. The property is outside the Albemarle County Service Authority
service area at Yancey Mills. The property is located on an improved
section of Route 824 about 600 feet from Route 250 West.
Staff Comment: The applicant proposes a church with a seating capacity of
200-250 persons and a parsonage on this property. Church usage would
involve regular worship services, revivals, and business meetings about two
days per week (See SP-86-27). Staff opinion is that a church would not be
objectionable to nor substantially change the character of the area. Staff
recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
Site plan approval. Prior to Planning Commission review of site
plan the applicant shall obtain Health Department and Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation approvals;
0
Seating capacity to be determined by adequacy of septic system,
not to exceed a maximum seating of 250 persons."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 3, 1986, unanimously
recommended approval subject to the two conditions in the staff's report.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-86-27. Crozet Church of God. To allow a day care center in the
church located on a 5.015 acres zoned RA. Located on the south side of Route 824, west of
Interstate 64, near Yancey Mills. Tax Map 55, Parcel 96A. Samuel Miller District. (Adver-
tised in the Daily Progress on June 3 and June 10, 1986.)
Mr. Horne then gave the staff's report on SP-86-27:
Staff Comment: The Crozet Church of God proposes operation of a day care
center for 60 children to be operated five days per week. Hot meals would
be served. The applicant would seek state licensure. (Note: This staff
report assumes approval of SP-86-26. The day care center is to be housed in
the proposed church building.)
Staff opinion is that a day care center operated in the proposed church
would not be objectionable to nor substantially change the character of the
area. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
Site plan approval. Prior to Planning Commission review of the site
plan the applicant shall obtain Health Department and Virginia Depart-
ment of Highways and Transportation approvals;
Enrollment to be determined by adequacy of septic system and regula-
tions of Virginia Department of Welfare, not to exceed a maximum
enrollment of 60 children;
e
Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance; 4This special
use permit is issued to the applicant and is non-transferrable."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 3, 1986, unanimously
recommended approval of SP-86-27 subject to the conditions in the staff's report.
Mr. Fisher asked if there would be separate facilities built for the Day Care Center in
addition to the church. Mr. Horne responded that it is his understanding that the Day Care
Center facilities would be housed in the church building itself. Mr. Fisher then pointed ou~
that the church building is supposed to have a maximum seating capacity of 250 persons. He
asked if the Day Care Center would be in the actual auditorium. Mr. Horne replied that it
his understanding that the Day Care Center will have separate facilities, but will be in the
same building.
0-8'B
June 18, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Fisher asked if the Highway Department had made any recommendation concerning this
request. Mr. Horne answered that the Highway Department made a statement during site review
that it felt it would be somewhat difficult to obtain commercial sight distance at the
entrance. Since that time, the applicant has been in touch with the Highway Department, and
has obtained verbal permission to do extensive grading on that right-of-way to get the sight
distance. He said, however, the sight distance is not there now with the existing farm
entrance.
Mr. Fisher next asked if a church that would house 250 people, have church school
facilities, parking, septic fields, wells, etc., could be placed on a five acre parcel with
the topography and soil that is in this area. Mr. Horne said he thinks it is technically
feasible, but there has not been a full soil analysis and layout-done by the applicant. He
pointed out that the septic system can be underneath parking areas, if properly designed. It
is his understanding that the Day Care Center would not necessarily be operating at the same
time as the worship services would be conducted, so everyone would not be using the septic
system at any one time. He said that many times when the Health Department looks at an
intermittent use of a drainfield, it will not be considered in the same way as a domestic
system. The Health Department may make allowances because the septic system will have a
lower demand during the week and can recover from the high peak demand on Sundays.
Mr. Fisher then inquired as to the topography on this site. Mr. Horne replied that it
is a knoll with very steep sides to the edges of the property, but there is an extensive are~
in the center of the property. He stated that at least three acres are on gently rolling
topography.
At this time the public hearing was opened. Mr. Don Brown, Pastor of the Church of God
was there to talk to the Board. He said that the Day Care Center will be in the educational
part of the facility, and the building will be approximately 5,000 square feet maximum. He
stated that a representative from the Health Department had gone over the property with him
and indicated that there are approximately four acres that are usable without any grading.
He mentioned that the steep hill is at the rear of the property, and he does not think there
will be a need to go under the parking areas for the septic system. Mr. Brown said that the
Health Department representative indicated that the septic system would have to be able to
handle 1200 gallons of water a day for the Day Care Center, and he could not see any problem
with that. As far as the sight distance is concerned, Mr. Brown has talked with Mr. Echols
at the Highway Department. The sight distance can be acquired, but earth movers will have t~
be brought in and the top of the hill removed. Mr. Echols has given tentative approval for
this to be done.
Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Brown plans to go ahead and do whatever is necessary to get the
site ready for construction. Mr. Brown answered, "yes." He said that when the Board ap-
proves the request, the arrangements will be made to prepare the site.
Mr. Bowie asked if the Day Care Center would be only for the church's own parishioners
or would it also be for the public. Mr. Brown responded that the Day Care Center will be
available to the public, because Crozet is in desperate need for day care facilities.
Mr. Fisher cautioned Mr. Brown to be very careful that everything that is being propose¢
can actually be placed on this site. He said that often churches with low budgets try to
site a facility on a marginal piece of property. He said that sometimes the property will
cause problems and cost more money for the church, and sometimes for the County. He asked
Mr. Brown not to overlook these problems and to try to deal with them with the County staff.
He mentioned that wells are sometimes unpredictable in this part of the county. Mr. Brown
said he appreciates Mr. Fisher's concerns, and he will be careful. He said that this is one
of the reasons that the church has not yet purchased the land. He said that the church
representatives will work very closely with the County staff.
Mr. Fisher mentioned that it might be smart to dig the well before anything else is
done. Mr. Brown answered that he has already talked with a well driller, and the well
driller said that it is a good area for water, and the soil is good. The well driller
believes also that sufficient water could be obtained at 200 to 250 feet. He said that he
did tell the well driller what the Health Department had recommended as the daily require-
ment.
There was no one else present who wished to speak on either of the applications, so Mr.
Fisher closed the Public Hearing and put the matter before the Board.
Mr. Bowie said it looks to him as though Mr. Brown has done what he should do and he
support this request. Mr. Fisher suggested that the agenda items be taken in order and as
separate votes..
Mr. Lindstrom commented that this is a situation where the Health Department is being
depended upon to do its job, but he believes that when a Special Permit is issued, the Healt!
Department may not be as restrictive in its regulations as it needs to be. He said he will
support this request, but it Would be helpful if more information on topography could be
given to the Board. He understands that this is included for the site plan consideration,
but when a Special Permit is being considered, the nature of the decision requires some
understanding of the site to determine whether or not it is appropriate. He said that he ha~
no idea what the elevation or contours are for this particular site.
At this time, Mr. Henley offered motion to approve SP-86-26 with the conditions recom-
mended by the Planning Commission. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way,
None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are as follows:)
june 18, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(k~Tge 9)
087
Site plan approval. Prior to Planning Commission review of the
site plan the applicant shall obtain Health Department and Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation approvals;
Seating capacity to be determined by adequacy of septic system,
not to exceed a maximum seating of 250 persons.
Mr. Henley then offered motion to approve SP-86-27 with the conditions recommended by
the Planning Commission. Mr. Way seconded the motion. 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.
Site plan approval. Prior to Planning Commission review of the
site plan the applicant shall obtain Health Department and Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation approvals;
Enrollment to be determined by adequacy of septic system and
regulations of Virginia Department of Welfare, not to exceed a
maximum enrollment of 60 children;
3. Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance;
e
This special use permit is issued to the applicant and is
non-transferrable.
Agenda Item No. 11. Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District. Consider a request t¢
establish the Blue Run Agricultural and ForeStal District, pursuant to Section 15.1-1511B.5.
of the Code of Virginia. The proposed district consists of 1136.0 acres located on the east
side of Route 20 North, adjacent to the Orange County line. Tax map 35, Parcels 17, 17A,
24A, 26, 26A, 26B, 26C, 28, 29, 29B, 31, 32A, and 43. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on June 3 and June 10, 1986.)
Mro Horne discussed the staff report. He stated that the Advisory Committee had unani-
mously recommended that the proposed district be accepted as submitted, based on the report
by Mr. Yager, regarding the soils and existing forestal and agricultural uses of the proper-
ties. He said that the soils are well suited to agricultural and forestal pursuits, however,
grasslands and forestry are the best uses. He mentioned, too, that there is a smaller
acreage that is suitable for cultivating crops. Mr. Horne next pointed out the area on the
map and said that the bulk of the property does not front on Route 20. He showed the Board
where the pasture land and active agricultural uses, which are the main uses for most of the
property, are located. He also noted on the map the forestal areas on the steeper slopes.
He said that a series of residences are located along Route 641.
Mrs. Cooke asked for clarification as to where the property is located. Mr. Horne
pointed out the Orange County line on the map, and said the property is located just over the
line in Albemarle County. He Said that the easiest way to view the property would be to
drive along Route 641, and in the open areas, it is possible to look up the Blue Run Valley
to the north and south to' see the bulk of the property in the distance. He pointed out agair
on the map where the property fronts on Route 20, which is the very northern end of Albemarle
County.
Mrs. Cooke then asked if there was a particular reason that this proposal is being made.
Mr. Horne responded that he is not aware of any particular reason outside of a general
feeling that the applicants would like to support, the continuance of agricultural and
forestal uses in this area. In this way, the applicants can protect themselves and the
general character of the area from development. Mr. Horne went on to say that the Planning
Commission made a unanimous recommendation for approval on June 3, 1986.
Mr. Way wondered if adjacent neighbors are aware of this proposal and if they have had
an opportunity to comment. Mr. Horne answered, "yes." He said the proposal has been adver-
tised in the newspaper and a notice is posted on the property. He also believes that a
number of the adjacent neighbors have been contacted by the applicants in order to encourage
them to join the district.
Mr. Bowie wanted to make sure that the adjacent property owners had been contacted.
Horne answered that the Advisory Committee report states that a number of neighbors were
contacted regarding the application for the district.
Mr
At this time, Mr. Fisher recognized the applicant, Dr. Hal Young, Jr. Dr. Young stated
that he and the other applicants had requested approval of this district to preserve the
agricultural and forestal nature of the land, and they feel that it is in keeping with the
County's plan for the area. He said that the entire area has similar uses. The applicants
have all cut their timber selectively and do not plan to ever do any clear-cutting on the
land. Dr. Young added that the agricultural use involves land that is used for grazing and
for hay crops with no plans for cultivation. He said that there is no spraying of chemicals
in the area of the property, and the applicants are interested in preserving the water of
Blue Run. He stated that the farms make up the beginning of Blue Run, which has been consid-
ered an Orange County impoundment for water use. He asked that the Board support the appli-
cation.
Ms. Kat Imhoff, from the Piedmont Environmental Council, spoke next and said that PEC
would like to recognize Dr. Young for all of the work he has done on this district. She sai(
she is sure that the Board is aware that these district proposals take a lot of citizen
effort before the proposals get to the Board.
O88
June 18, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
There was no one else who wished to speak on this issue, so Mr. Fisher closed the Public
Hearing and put the matter before the Board.
Mr. Bowie commented that this district is in a beautiful part of the County, and he
believes that this is the proper way to preserve sections of the County as open, agricultural
and forestal lands through the work and desires of the people. He will support the applica-
tion.
Mr. Fisher stated that he would like to add to Mr. Bowie's comments, and he commended
these citizens for their farsightedness in trying to find a mechanism for joint preservation
to protect themselves from a sale to someone who might have a different desire for the land.
He said that this is an experience for the Board, because there are only a few of these
districts in the County and they have only been there a few years. He believes that when the
owners are interested in the preservation of the land, the County should support them 100
percent, and he intends to do so.
Mr. Way added that he intends to support the application also, but he pointed out that
just because this area has been declared an agricultural and forestal zone and will be used
only for these purposes, it does not necessarily mean that it will always be the pastureland
scene that everyone has in mind. One of the agricultural districts in Mr. Way's area has
been a major problem because the farm use has become, due to the chemicals and manure that is
spread, a real problem to the neighbors and the Town of Scottsville. He said that it is
difficult to do anything about it, because it is an agricultural zone that has been set aside
for agricultural purposes.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom that the Blue Run Agricul-
tural and Forestal District be approved as requested by adopting the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
SECTION 2.1-4 OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 2.1,
KNOWN AS THE "AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS"
ORDINANCE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Section 2.1-4 of the Albemarle County Code known as the
"Agricultural and Forestal Districts" Ordinance be amended and reenacted by
adding subsection (d) creating the "Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal
District", described as follows:
(d) The district known as the "Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal
District" consists of the following described properties: Tax Map 35,
Parcels 17, 17A, 24A, 26, 26A, 26B, 26C, 28, 29, 29B, 31, 32A and 43.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Fisher asked how many agricultural and forestal districts are in Albemarle County.
Ms. Imhoff answered that approval of this district will make the fourth one in Albemarle
County. She mentioned that two more districts, Keswick and Kinloch on Route 22, will be
brought before the Board in approximately 60 to 90 days.
Agenda item No. 12. H.C.M.F. XV Project, Request for Resolution to approve Industrial
Development Authority Financing for this project.
A letter dated June 6, 1986, was received from Mr. Stephen L. Johnson:
"I am writing to request that the issuance of the $4,250,000 Industrial
Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia, Mortgage Revenue
Refunding Bonds (H.C.M.F. XV - FHA Insured Project), Series 1986 (the
'Bonds') be placed upon the agenda for the June 18th meeting of the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County (the 'Board') for the Board's approval. The
Bonds are to be used to refund a bond issued by the Industrial Development
Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia (the 'Authority') in 1984 for the
acquisition, construction and equipping of a one hundred twenty (120) bed
skilled and intermediate care nursing home facility.
Ordinarily, public approval is not required for the issuance of refunding
bonds. However, where, as here, the maturities of the refunding bonds are
longer than those of the refunded obligations, a public hearing must be held
and governmental approval obtained. Consequently, a public hearing will be
held by the Authority on June 9th, and hopefully governmental approval will
be forthcoming from the Board on June 18th. The issuance of the refunding
bonds will have no effect under current law or the tax bill passed by the
United States House of Representatives on the allocation granted to the
Authority for 1986, as more fully explained in the attached copy of a letter
sent to Mr. Murray, the Authority's chairman.
If you have questions or need any further information, please do not hesi-
tate to call me at 771-9585. I thank you in advance for your cooperation in
this matter."
Mr. Agnor stated that Mr. Stephen L. Johnson, Attorney in the Law Firm of Hirsch!er,
Fleischer, Weinberg, Cox and Allen in Richmond, was at the meeting to discuss the Project and
summarize the letter that the Board received from Mr. Johnson.
June 18, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(PaHe 11)
Mr. Johnson requested that the Board approve a resolution with respect to the financing
of a 120 bed nursing home facility in Albemarle County. He mentioned that the original
for this project were approved in December of 1984, and now the bonds need to be refunded in
order to obtain more favorable financial terms. He said that ordinarily the issuance of a
refunding bond such as this doesn't require public approval, but in one limited instance,
which applies to this bond, such approval is required. He went on to say that when the term
of the refunding bond is going to be longer than the terms of the original bonds, a Public.
Hearing needs to be held and governmental approval obtained. He said that the Albemarle
County Industrial Development Authority held the Public Hearing on June 9, and he is at this
meeting to get public approval. He added that one of the major concerns that is sometimes
raised by boards of supervisors and industrial development authorities is how a particular
bond issuance will affect the allocation that is granted to a locality from the state. He
said that if the amount of the refunding bond is not greater than the original bond, there
no effect on the allocation. In this particular instance, both bonds are the same in terms
of the amount, so there is no effect on the allocation. Mr. JohnsOn stated that there was
representative from HCMF at the meeting to answer questions, but he would answer any ques-
tions that he could. He mentioned that the purchaser has spent over a half million dollars
already and has obtained a Special Use Permit and has applied for a building permit. The
purchaser has also obtained the approval from the Planning Commission for the site plan, and
things are progressing rapidly at this point.
Mr. Fisher asked why longer terms are needed than was anticipated with the original
bond. Mr. Johnson responded that the underwriter will market these bonds publicly, and
longer terms seem to be better in these cases. He said that this particular refunding bond
is issued as being backed by FHA insurance, and these bonds can be purchased at a fixed rate
over a period of time because of the insurance backing. He said, however, that he was not
familiar with the financing relating to the maturity of the bonds.
Mr. Fisher then asked the maturity of these bonds and the original bonds. Mr. Johnson
answered that the maturity of these bonds is forty years, and the maturity of the original
bonds was thirty years.
Mr. Fisher commented that he knows that lower interest rates have encouraged a lot of
people to refinance mortgages, and he believes that this falls into the same category. He
mentioned, though, that this nursing home facility has not yet been built. Mr. Johnson
replied that construction of the project must be completed by December of 1987.
Mr. Fisher next asked if a Certificate of Need has been obtained from the State.
Johnson replied that the purchaser has had the Certificates of Need for some time.
Mr.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if this would result in a significant reduction in the amount
required periodically to amortize the debt. Mr. Johnson replied that he has not seen the
figures, but the funds that have been held in an escrow account have been invested. He said
that since there is a longer maturity, he is not sure what the savings will be.
Mr. Lindstrom said he presumes a longer maturity means a lower interest rate. He said
he knows that there are different feelings about the industrial development bonds, particu-
larly for this type of facility, but one of the reasons that he has been willing to support
the issuance of bonds is because it is presented by the applicant as an advantage for the
public because of the less costly approach. He hopes that an advantage will be reflected
again because of the lower rates and longer term of maturity. He then asked if lesser costs
could be passed on to the users of the facility because of this approach. Mr. Johnson
answered that he could not speak for the purchaser, but he believes that lesser costs could
be passed on to the users.
Mr. Fisher asked what guarantee Mr. Johnson could give the Board concerning the costs
for the users. He went on to say that if the Board approves this request, and the rates are
the same to the constituents who use the facility, then it is causing a windfall profit to
the purchaser. Mr. Johnson replied that approval of this request would not create a windfall
profit for the purchaser. He said that if the purchaser has more money than is needed to
construct the facility, the money will be used to redeem the bonds. When the proceeds from
the bonds that are invested create an arbitrage of investment at a higher yield, the
arbitrage has to be rebated to the federal government according to tax laws.
Mr. Lindstrom then asked if a Public Hearing will still have to be held. Mr. Johnson
told Mr. Lindstrom that a Public Hearing has been held by the Industrial Development Au-
thority. Mr. Fisher said that it is the Board's practice to also hold a Public Hearing. He
pointed out that this project has not been advertised. Mr.. Johnson responded that the
project was advertised for a Public Hearing before it was held by the Authority. Mr. Fisher
suggested that a Public Hearing be set for July 9 and that the applicant be requested to
the Board how this change in financing will affect the rate fee that will be charged to the
people who use the facility in dollars and cents. Mr. Johnson asked if it would be possible
for the Board to approve this request contingent upon the receipt of information from the
purchaser relative to the rates.
Mr. Bowie said he thought the County Attorney should tell the Board if another Public
Hearing is required. Mr. Fisher answered that a Public Hearing is not required, but the
Board can hold one to make sure that the public has an opportunity to respond. Mr. St. John
replied that under state law there is no Public Hearing required. He went on to say that he
would not try to answer the question concerning whether, in order to keep the tax exemption
for these bonds, a Public Hearing is required. He said that this is a function of bond
counsel. Mr. Johnson said that as far as the tax exemption and the interest on the bond is
concerned, a Public Hearing has to be held, and it is normally held by the Industrial Devel-
opment Authority. He also mentioned that tax law requirements have been satisfied. Mr.
Johnson added that governmental approval must follow the Public Hearing within a period of 61
days. Mr. St. John commented that, under state law, he does not believe that it is necessa~
to bring matters such as this before the governing body. He said this is a requirement of
the government and the governing bodies must concur.
090
June 18, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Johnson pointed out that a provision has been incorporated into Virginia statutes
that is very similar to the federal tax law that would require this type of governmental
approval. He said that even though a representative from HCMF could not be at the meeting,
Mr. Johnson does have a telephone number, and the representative said that if there were
problems, he could answer the questions by telephone. Mr. Johnson understands the Board's
concern that the people who will be staying in the nursing home may not reap any benefits
from the reduced financing costs.
Mr. Lindstrom then mentioned that sometimes, with government backed projects, there is s
review of the budget of the project, and a ceiling is placed on how much profit can be given
back to the purchaser. He said that this would limit the windfall characteristics. He asked
if this was the same type of situation. Mr. Johnson responded that he is not familiar with
the terms of an FHA commitment and what is required.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what Mr. Johnson's time schedule is for approval of this project.
Mr. Johnson replied that it is hoped that the bonds can be issued before the first week in
July. He said that this is why he was suggesting alternatives to address Board members'
concerns.
Mr. Fisher stated that he is interested in finding out the difference between the rates
for people using the nursing home under the existing financing versus what it would be under
the new financing. Mr. Fisher is also interested in who would establish the rates. He said
that if the owners are going to take lower financing and charge the same rates, then he
cannot support the request.
Mr. Bowie stated that he felt the creation of the jobs and the services are worth the
use of the industrial revenue bonds. He believes that not approving the request will insure
higher costs'. He said the request would not be before the Board except for the approval of a
longer period of time for the bonds. He said that the Board has already heard the debate of
the use of the bonds, and that is sufficient. He also said that he has no problem with this
matter as long as there is compliance with all of the laws relative to the bonds.
Mrs. Cooke mentioned that she did not understand what Mr. Johnson said concerning any
monies that are left after a project has been completed. Mr. Johnson explained that as mone,
is spent by the purchaser for the construction of the facility, he or she will have receipts
for various work that is done. The purchaser will present these receipts to whomever is the
escrow agent, and the monies will be disbursed in accordance with the receipts. A lot of
bonds have a provision that if by a certain date all of the bond proceeds are not disbursed
to the purchaser, then those bond proceeds will be used to pay off the bonds. He pointed out
that, in most cases, the purchaser will not have those proceeds to use because the money was
not expended on the project. Mr. Johnson then mentioned a different concept. He said that
during the construction period for a project, while the monies are held in the construction
fund, the escrow agent will sometimes invest these monies in various obligations with certain
lengths of maturities. He added that, hopefully, the maturities will be in line with the
time frame of what the purchaser expects to be the big costs of the project. When a large
payment is due, one of the obligations will come to maturity at that point, and the money
will be given to the purchaser. He said that the reason behind this concept, is that an
attempt is made to match up the interest rates on those obligations with the interest rate
that is actually being paid on the bond. If the bond proceeds are invested by the trustee in
obligations which have a higher yield than the yield on the bond, and if at the end of this
construction there is an excess amount, the difference is rebated to the federal government
according to the tax law. He said that this is highly technical arbitrage, and that most
bond firms have an attorney who deals with nothing but arbitrage. Mr. Johnson mentioned that
he is not an expert, and this is a general explanation. He said, however, that the procedure
is very complicated in terms of technicalities.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that he thought the real question is whether the bond payments will
be reduced because of the extended nature of financing and reduced interest rates, and not
whether all of the authorized monies will be used.
Mrs. Cooke asked if the monies that are rebated to the federal government will reduce
the bonded debt. Mr. Johnson answered that the whole purpose of the arbitrage is to keep
purchasers from making a windfall from proceeds. He said that in prior years the bond
proceeds could have been invested in much higher yielding maturities, and the purchaser could
reap the difference. He said that in these cases, the purchaser would be getting the advan-
tage of this excessive difference. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the tax laws have greatly
reduced the chances of this happening except in limited situations.
Mr. Fisher said again that Mr. Johnson has indicated no difference in rates for the
people who will be using the nursing home. Mr. Johnson replied that he cannot give a speci-
~iD dollar figure, but he is sure that the lower interest rates and extended financing will
make the rates lower. He said he cannot guarantee it, however, because he does not know the
pricing structure for the individuals who will be in the nursing home.
Mr. Fisher then stated that Mr. Johnson has come to the Board, on behalf of his client,
and has asked the Board to approve a redUced and subsidized interest rate for this project.
Yet, he cannot tell the Board anything as to how it will affect the rates for the nursing
home patients. Mr. Johnson said that, assuming a refund was not done and the current situa-
tion was continued, then clearly this would not have to be brought before the Board again,
because it has already been approved. He pointed out that there would be no way that any
more benefits could be received by the users of the facility.
Mr. Fisher pointed out that Mr. Johnson could not assure the Board that the users of the
nursing home will get any rate reduction. Mr. Johnson answered that he has not seen any
specific chartS indicating the advantages fOr the users.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Johnson to keep in mind the next time he appears before this Board,
that Board members are curious about these things. Mr. Johnson replied that he understands
June 18, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
091
what Mr. Fisher is saying, and that he was not prepared for the question concerning the
nursing home rates.
Mr. Bowie stated that he thought that to expect anyone in business to guarantee what is
going to happen within the next four years doesn't make any sense.
Mr. Lindstrom added that he thinks the question he asked concerning bond payments is a
legitimate question when public subsidization of interest rates is involved. He pointed out
that this is not a new bond issue, and he had asked the same question when this issue was
presented to the Board the first time. He said that he feels the reason there are so many
federal restrictions involving projects such as this one is because, in so many cases, there
is no benefit to the public.
Mr. Bowie asked how many beds would be in the nursing home.
there would be 120 beds.
Mr. Agnor answered that
Mr. St. John explained that it is the tax free interest that is being subsidized, and
there will be more income to people who will be subsidized by the present conditions than
will be subsidized if the interest rates are lowered.
Mr. Fisher suggested that a Public Hearing be set and that the purchaser be asked for
details as to how this change in financing will affect the nursing home rates. He said he
would ask any applicant under similar circumstances the same thing. He also said that he
will not support approval of this matter tonight.
Mr. Way asked when the Public Hearing was held before the Authority.
that the Public Hearing was held before the Authority on June 9.
Mr. Agnor answered
Mr. Way then asked if the Board's approval has to be within 60 days of the Authority's
hearing. Mr. Agnor answered that Mr. Way is correct.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the Public Hearing for this project be scheduled for July 2
which would be the same night as the Public Hearing for the Capital Improvement Program.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to set for public hearing on July 2 and ask Mr. Johnson to
get from HCMF some information about how financial advantages for an extended period and the
reduced rates could be passed onto patients who use the facility. Mr. Way seconded the
motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-86-31. Harry L. Garth. To allow for reallocation of division
rights. Property on east side of Route 658, adjacent to the north of Ivy Farms Subdivision.
Tax Map 44, Parcels 33A and 33B. Jack Jouett District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
June 3 and June 10, 1986.)
Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows:
"Request: This is a request to redivide two parcels into five lots ranging
from two to five acres, with an average lots size of 2.6 acres. Individual
wells and septic systems are proposed (Section 10.5.2 of the Zoning Ordi-
nance).
Character of the Area: One single family dwelling currently exists on
parcel 33A. Lot 33B is vacant. Route 658 is deVeloped with a mixture of
residential and agricultural uses. This property is located adjacent to
Barracks Farm and near the Ivy Farms development.
Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: The plan shows this area in Rural Area
I. The recommended density for property within the South Fork Rivanna River
Watershed is one dwelling unit per ten acres.
Special Use Permit Criteria: Since this petition does not propose an
increase over the number of lots allowed 'by right,' the criteria for the
review of special use permits (Section 10.5.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance)
have not been applied. These existing lots have sufficient development
rights to result in a total of five lots. No additional division rights
exist for these lots to allow for any future divisions.
This redivision requires a special use permit because of the manner in which
the lot lines are to be changed. Based on the Board of Supervisors determi-
nation on the Hopewell Subdivision, each new (redivided) lot must contain at
least two acres from an existing lot.
The criteria for review of this special use permit is whether this proposed
redivision serves the public interest to an equivalent or greater extent
than a subdivision 'by right'.
Staff Comment: The applicant proposes to create five lots, four of which
are two, plus acres in size. Present subdivision regulations require a
state road for a development with lots under five acres.
The applicant has verified, through the soil scientist report, that the
existing two lots could be subdivided in a 'by right' manner to create two
lots on parcel 33B and three lots on parcel 33A (all with adequate building
sites including septic fields). Therefore, the special use permit does not
propose an increased density.
June 18, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Staff opinion is that the proposed subdivision better reflects the public
interest than 'by right' development for the following reasons:
This proposal allows for more logical shape lots to be created;
These lots create more logical building sites;
This proposal creates a safe access that will serve both parcels.
Preliminary Health Department approval for these lots and County Engineer
preliminary approval of road plans have not been received as yet, therefore,
the Commission must review the proposed subdivision plat for this develop-
ment. Although Health Department approval has not been obtained, a soils
scientist report has been done and indicates that adequate septic drainfield
sites are available for each lot. The County Engineer does not anticipate
any problems in establishing a road on this site and has recommended
approval subject to their approval of road and drainage plans and computa-
tions.
Staff recommends approval of this petition, subject to the following condi-
tions:
The subdivision shall be limited to five parcels and shall be in
general accordance with the plat by William Morris Foster, dated
May 23, 1986;
The final subdivision plat will not be signed until the following
conditions are met:
a. County Engineer approval of public road and drainage plans
and computations; b. Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation approval
of road and drainage plans and computations; c. Issuance of an
erosion control permit; d. Issuance of a runoff control permit."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission at its meeting on June 3, 1986, unanimously
recommended approval subject to only Condition No. 1 in the staff's report because the Health
Department approval had not been received by the Planning Commission or the staff. There-
fore, the Commission wanted to review the subdivision plat. The second set of conditions was
assuming staff approval of the subdivision plat.
(Mr. St. John left at 9:17 P.M.)
Mr. Lindstrom wanted to know if the staff had examined whether the two parcels can
actually be developed as they exist to five parcels, relative to topography, streams and
setbacks, etc. Mr~ Horne answered, "yes". He said that in this case the parcels have been
examined more closely than usual. He also said that the staff has received verification of
locations of some of the drainfields from the soil scientist, Mr. Horne then pointed out the
area on the map.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the applicant would have any advantage of having two parcels
rather than just one parcel of that size. Mr. Horne answered that the two parcels did not
give the applicant much of an advantage because of the division rights in this particular
case. There would still be only five lots available. Mr. Horne said the major advantage
with the two lots is that a road would be built in a more logical location which is away from
state maintenance and will make sight distance better. He also said that the lots would be
more logically shaped.
There were no other questions from the Board for Mr. Horne, so Mr. Fisher opened the
Public Hearing. He asked for the applicant's representative to address the Board.
Mr. Ron Carter, representative for the applicant, said he would be glad to answer any
questions that the Board had for him. He also commented that the Health Department approval
had been provided, Mr. Horne agreed that the Health Department approval had been presented
at the Planning Commission meeting. However, Mr. Horne informed Mr. Carter that the Commis-
sion's general policy is that if this information is not received prior to its review, the
Commission will review the subdivision plat.
Since there was no one else indicating a desire to speak, and Board members had no
questions for Mr. Carter, Mr. Fisher closed the Public Hearing.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve this request subject to the condition recom-
mended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
(Note: The condition of approval is as follows:)
1. The subdivision shall be limited to five parcels and shall be in general
accordance with the plat by William Morris Foster, dated May 23, 1986.
Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Minutes: October 9, 1985. Mr. Way had read pages 29
(Item 22) to the end and found them to be in order. Mr. Fisher had read pages 9 (Item 8) to
the end of page 16 and found them to be in order.
Mr. Bowie offered motion to approve the portion of the October 9, 1985, minutes noted as
read. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
June 18, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 14.
Billboards.
Request from Ashland Town Council re:
Tree Cutting in Front of
Mr. Agnor commented that the reason the tree cutting policy was placed on the Board's
agenda so quickly is because the Ashland Town Council is asking for action from the Board
this month. He understands that last year the Highway Department started a tree cutting
program which was stopped after public protest. He said that the Department indicated that
it would review the program and did so. However, the Department did not involve the locali-
ties and did not hold a Public Hearing. Mr. Agnor next said that the Town of Ashland appar-
ently has a member of the Council who wrote a letter to the Governor about the matter. The
Council is now asking other localities in Virginia to write to the Department of Highways and
make their position known by July 1. Mr. Agnor briefly went over the Department's experimen-
tal policy to control vegetation.
Mr. Fisher stated that he is not ready to deal with this at this meeting. He would like
to have a chance to study this issue. He said that it would be helpful if someone on the
staff could give the Board a one page staff report in a few weeks.
Mr. Bowie stated that one of the biggest pleasures of driving Virginia highways is the
lack of signs. He cannot believe that tree cutting in front of billboards could get by the
Board without its input. He does not want this to happen in Albemarle County, unless the
request is made first.
Mr. Lindstrom agreed with Mr. Bowie, but pointed out that the localities' positions on
the issue are requested by July 1.
Mr. Agnor asked the Board to keep in mind that the Department will only be clearing in
front of ten signs in the whole Culpeper District as an experiment.
Mr. Bowie offered motion to go on record as being totally opposed to the experimental
tree cutting taking place in this area without there first being a public hearing held in the
area. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public.
Mr. Johnson asked if he could speak to the Board again. He said that he had spoken wit]
a representative of HCMF about how rates are determined at nursing homes. Mr. Fisher remind-
ed Mr. Johnson that the Board had already come to a decision about the matter.. Mr. Johnson
then asked if the Board could give him some guidance. He wanted to know if the Board expects
to see numbers in terms of what is expected as a differential between costs using the origi-
nal bonds as opposed to refinancing the bonds. Mr. Fisher answered, "yes." Mr. Johnson went
on to say that he has learned that the rates are set by the State of Virginia.
Mr. Bowie restated the Board's original question by saying that if the interest is
cheaper, what happens to the rates that are charged to the people. Mr. Johnson said that
apparently HUD reviews the entire process and, based upon what is presented, it determines
what the costs will be. Mr. Lindstrom asked if HUD included such things as amortization of
the mortgage in its review. Mr. Johnson answered that HUD does take amortization of the
mortgage into account. He mentioned, too, that the State of Virginia regulates the rates
charged by nursing homes. The State determines the rate by looking at the cost of the
operation of the nursing home.
Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that he had mentioned earlier that it would seem to him that
there would be some agency that would look at the overall cost of operating the facility. He
assumes that HCMF would be required to provide the information upon the reduced cost of
financing to the state, and the state would take that into consideration when the rates are
set. He then asked for clarification that the state actually sets the rates, and not HCMF.
Mr. Johnson replied that Mr. Lindstrom was correct. He said that apparently the state sets
the rates based upon the plant cost determination which is decided by HUD. He added that
because the state is actually setting the rates for the nursing home, that is where the
benefit flows through to patients. The purchaser will not be able to reap any benefits from
the lower interest costs.
Mr. Lindstrom said that he had made the original motion, but he would like to move for
reconsideration of the vote taken on Agenda Item No. 12. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: Mr. Fisher.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that since the matter is before the Board again, he would like to
amend his motion, because now he has verification of the procedure for setting nursing home
rates. It does not appear to him that HCMF has control over the rates that it charges for
patients to use the facility. He would move that the resolution for approval be adopted wit~
a proviso that when the figures are available, the Board will be shown a comparison of the
rate structure under the old bond issue and a rate structure under the new bond issue. He
does not think that it is fair to delay the partnership when it cannot control the rates.
Mr. Fisher commented that he does not believe that Mr. Johnson's explanation is com-
plete. He thinks that when patients are under a welfare program that this is the case. He
does not think that this applies to private patients. Mr. Johnson said he had no way of
094_
June 18, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Pa3e~l~)
addressing Mr. Fisher's comment except to confirm in writing to the Board the explanation
that was given to Mr. Johnson by the HCMF representative. He hopes this will allay any
concerns that the Board has concerning certain residents. He said that he is not sure if
private patients will be handled differently, but he does not think that this could happen
rates have been set by Medicaid. He said, however, that at this point he cannot speak
authoritatively about the rates. Mr. Johnson stated that he will get a letter to Board
members about this matter as soon as possible, as well as the comparison of the rates under
the new and old bond issues.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to adopt the following
resolution and request that when figures become available, the Board would like to see a
comparison of the rate structure under the old bond issue and the rate structure under the
new bond issue.
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County,
Virginia (the "Authority"), has considered the plan of financing of H.C.M.F.
XV, a Virginia limited partnership (the "Partnership"), requesting the
issuance of the Authority's mortgage revenue refunding bonds in an amount
not to exceed $4,250,000 (the "Bonds") in order to refund the Authority's
$4,250,000 1984 Industrial Development Revenue Bond (H.C.M.F. XV Facility)
issued on December 8, 1984 to finance the acquisition, construction and
equipping of a one hundred twenty (120) bed skilled and intermediate care
nursing home facility to be located on a 9 acre, more or less, parcel of
land situated approximately 790 feet south of the southern line of state
Route 631 (Rio Road) at a point approximately one-half mile northwest of the
intersection of State Route 631 and U. S. Route 29 in Albemarle County,
Virginia (the "County"), the southwestern boundary of which parcel fronts
the northeastern line of the Blue Ridge Golf Course (the "Project"), and has
held a public hearing thereon on June 9, 1986; and
WHEREAS, Section 15.1-1378.1 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as
amended (the "Commonwealth's Code"), requires the governing body of the
municipality on behalf of which the bonds of the Authority are issued,
within sixty (60) calendar days from the public hearing held by the
Authority, to either approve or disapprove financing of any facility recom-
mended by the Authority; and
WHEREAS, Section 103(k.) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as
amended (the "Tax Code"), provides that the governmental unit having juris-
diction over the issuer of industrial development bonds and over the area in
which any facility financed with the proceeds of induStrial development
bonds is located must approve the issuance of such bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of the County, the
Project is to be located in the County and the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County (the "Board") constitutes the highest elected "governmental
official" within the meaning of Section 103(k) of the Tax Code and the
"governing body" of the County within the meaning of Section 15.1-1378.1 of
the Commonwealth's Code; and
WHEREAS, promptly following said public hearing, the Authority conveyed
a reasonably detailed summary of the comments expressed at said hearing to
the Board, together with the Authority's recommendation that the Board
approve the financing of the Project and the issuance of the Bonds, which
recommendation was accompanied by a completed statement required by Section
15.1-1378.2 of the Commonwealth's Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board approves the financing of the Project and the issuance of
the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the Partnership, as required
by Section 15.1-1378.1 of the Commonwealth's Code and Section 103(k) of the
Tax Code, respectively~ to permit the Authority to assist in financing the
Project.
2. The approval of the financing of the Project and the issuance of
the Bonds as required by Section 15.1-1378.1 of the Commonwealth's Code and
Section 103(k) of the Tax Code, respectively, does not constitute an en-
dorsement to prospective purchasers of the Bonds as to the financial viabil-
ity of the Project or the creditworthiness of the Project or the Partner-
ship; and, as required by Section 15.1-1380 of the Commonwealth's Code, the
Bonds shall provide that neither the County nor the Authority shall be
obligated to pay the Bonds or the interest thereon or other costs incident
thereto except from the revenues and monies pledged therefor, and neither
the faith and credit nor the taxing power of the.Commonwealth, the County or
the Authority shall be pledged thereto.
3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
Roll was called on the foregoing motion which carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
Mr. Fisher.
At 9:40 P.M., Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adjourn into executive session to discuss
the acquisition of property. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
095
June 18, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
( P_a~e 17)
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
The Board reconvened into open session at 10:10 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 16. Adjournment. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adjourn until 4:30
P.M. on June 19, 1986, at Charlottesville City Hall. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.