Loading...
1986-08-20 adjAugUst 20, 1986 (Adjourned Meeting from August 13, 1986) (Page 1) 195 An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August 20, 1986, at 3:00 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia, said meeting being adjourned from August 13, 1986. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, Mr. J. T. Henley (arrived at 3:30 P.M.) and Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Peter T. Way. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney (arrived at 3:11 P.M.); and Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive. Agenda Item No. 1. Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 3:05 P.M., by the Agenda Item No. 2. Public Hearing: Ordinance to vacate a certain plat of a portion of Pheasant Lane Subdivision for the redivision of Lot 8. Tax Map 44, Parcel 32. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 5 and August 12, 1986.) Mr. Fisher said this is an unusual proceeding for the Board. A request was received from a citizen at the July 9 Board meeting and the Board, after considerable discussion, decided to hold a public hearing on this matter. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Clyde Gouldman, representing Mr. William Edgerton, addressed the Board. Mr. Gouldman said his client brought this matter to the attention of the Board, but the introduction of the ordinance to vacate the plat was through a motion by Mr. Lindstrom. The real issue is whether the County of Albemarle can ignore certain provisions of its Zoning Ordinance merely because of a family division of property; the answer being no. The Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Ordinance are two different "animals" although they both are land use controls. Lot 8 of the Milkey tract subdivision, as originally recorded five years ago, is approximately a six acre parcel. It is in a "critical slope area" as. defined by the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance, Section 4.2.2.1, states that each lot created must have a minimum of 30,000 square feet of buildable area and the area making up that 30,000 sq. ft. must meet the five to one ratio. The intent is to prevent a developer from building on an odd-shaped building site that has no contiguous area. The County Engineer in a memorandum dated July 15, 1986, indicated that Lot 8B did not meet the five to one ratio, although there is 30,000 sq. ft. of buildable area. Mr. Gouldman said he interprets that to mean that Lot 8B is unbuildable, pursuant to the County Engineer's findings because the lot is too steep. (Mr. Payne arrived at 3:11 P.M.) Mr. Gouldman said his argument is based on the fact that the five to one ratio cannot be met. The family division section allows families to request of the staff waiver of certain subdivision requirements. The request does not have to come before the Board of Supervisors or the Planning Commission. There are certain qualifications of a family division, one of which is that the lots created must conform to th~ Zoning Ordinance. He therefore asks the question if a person is exempt from subdivision requirements, is he also exempt from zoning requirements? The Attorney General, in response to a letter from Mr. St. John, stated that the State statute, which allows families to subdivide, does not exempt those same families from the Zoning Ordinance. He, therefore, contends that Lot 8B is not buildable under the Zoning Ordinance and that on March 12, 1986, ther~ was administrative approval of a two-lot subdivision erroneously. The.approval created at least one lot that is not in compliance With the Zoning Ordinance. Approval of the division was probably prompted by reliance on a certi- ficate done by the developer's agent which certifies that there is 30,000 sq. ft. of buildable lot space on both lots, and implications that the five to one ratio can be met. In addition there was no notice to adjacent property owners as none is required under family division when done administratively. Mr. Edgerton found out about this division when the bulldozers began work. This administrative approval was done disregarding a note on the subdivision plat recorded in 1981 that states "No further subdivision shall be made on this property unless approved by the Albemarle County Planning Commission." Five years ago there were arguments that neither site contained 30,000 sq. ft. of buildable area that met the constraints of the Zoning Ordinance Although the Planning Commission felt there was owe site of buildable area, to make sure that no further subdivision took place, it added a note to the plat. The note is in the chain of title. If the Board does not vacate this plat, an i~nocent third party could purchase Lot 8B and find himself unable to get a building permit or a precedent could be set where this Board is, in effect, ignoring certain provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board is not in a position where it can arbitrarily enforce the Ordinance. There are several positions the developer may take: (1) Mr. Edgerton is not an interes- ted party with regard to the statute and that the ordinance is not properly before the Board. In response Mr. Edgerton is an interested party, as he is an abutting property owner. (2) Section 15.1-482(b) of the Virginia Code refers to vacation of plats after land has been sold and the developer gave this property to his wife on March 12, therefore vacation of plat cannot be used. In response a proper reading of the State statute defines the word "sale" as transfer of property. If the word "sale" were not to include gift and the Board knew that an erroneous and invalid subdivision plat had been recorded, the Board would not be in a position to vacate the plat. He does not think that was the~ intent of the State General Assembly. (3) The developer relied on this subdivision approval on March 12 and the reliance was reasonable. When the developer purchased the lot, it was one piece of land consisting of six acres. There was no guarantee of subdivision from the County. If this plat is vacated, it will be return- ing the developer to a position he put himself into, which is owner of a six-acre parcel of land. August 20, 1986 (Adjourned Meeting from August 13, 1986) (Page 2) Mr. Gouldman presented, for the record, (1) copy of slope studies introduced at the last meeting, (2) copy of July 15, 1986 memorandum from the County Engineer, (3) copy of Attorney General's letter dated June 17, 1986, (4) copy of his letter to Mr. Burgess dated July 15, 1986, and (5) copy of original recorded plat of the Milkey tract recorded in 1981. He noted that his copy of the plat does not have any signatUres affixed. Mr. Lindstrom said his concern is this particular use of the family division in the ordinance, and asked if Mr. Gouldman had any comments. Mr. Gouldman said there is something dreadfully wrong with the family division exemption as it exists in the Zoning Ordinance. ThE idea being that after one year, whatever family member is deeded property under the family exemption can give the property away or sell it. He does not believe that is the intent of the State statute. The State statute indicates that the County may put in reasonable provi- sions. He thought the State statute allowed counties to do certain things in the subdivision ~ordinance. In Code Section 15.1-466 it states "The following provision shall be in the subdivision ordinance." He wonders whether the "shall" means "have to be". The idea of enabling legislation is that the Board can put in what it, in it's infinite wisdom, thinks should be in there. Although the County feels this family exemption provision should be there, he does not like the provision. (Mr. Henley arrived at 3:30 P.M.) Mr. Fisher asked with regard to the plat submitted, what does the yellow area denotes. Mr. Gouldman said the yellow indicates the areas that are flat enough to qualify for being less than 25 percent in slope. The remainder of the lot is steep. Mr. Edgerton said the topography map was done five and one-half years ago by an engineer who was working with Dr. Charles Hurt. The reason the map does not show the entire lot is because there is a stream running through both of the lots. He did a slope study and put the yellow lines on the map. Mr. Agnor said at the July 9, 1986, Board meeting, Mr. Michael Armm, County Engineer, wag directed to field check the site. The memorandum referred to by Mr. Gouldman is a result of the field survey. The memorandum shows the setbacks from the stream and the setbacks from the property line. Mr. Armm's memorandum indicated that the ratio of five to one could not be accomplished on Lot 8B. Subsequent to that memorandum, it was found that counting the setbac~ from the property line along the slope is allowable. Although a building cannot be built in the setback, septic systems are allowed. The dimensions for the five to one ratio would therefore, include the area adjacent to the abutting property line, and thus the five to one ratio can be met. The County has always used the setback from the property for determination of the five to one ratio. Mr. Bowie asked if the site meets the 30,000 square feet building site regulation. Mr. Agnor replied yes, by adding in the setback it meets the five to one ratio. Mr. Gouldman said Mr. Agnor's statements are totally new to him. When the ordinance speaks of five to one ratio, it is with regard to buildable site area, not gross lot. He does not accept the position of the County Engineer, nor is there a plat showing how this is done. The site is contiguous so he does not think that including the setback will cure the problem. Mr. Ron Wiley, representing Mr. & Mrs. Wood, addressed the Board. He said he was not aware that this matter was under consideration at anytime prior to the meeting today. Lot 8A is 2.94 acres and Lot 8B is 3.10 acres. The other lots in the Milkey tract average about 2.56 acres. This was a family division approved appropriately under the family division section of the ordinance on March 1.2, 1986. He wants the Board to consider the effect if it does vacate this plat. This is a situation in which an adjacent property owner objected to an approved subdivision plat, already of record, 90 days after approval and suddenly the plat is under attack. He suggests that if that scenario can occur then every property owner in Albemarle County who owns a lot in a subdivision with an approved subdivision plat had better go to the title insurance company to see if there is a good title for the property, because if the Board can vacate this plat today, it can vacate any plat it wants to in the County. He does not think that was the intent of the General Assembly. The provisions of State law that the Board appears to be proceeding under are not applicable in this case. The statute reads that in the event of sale of a lot in a subdivision, the plat can be vacated in one of two ways; one by agreement of all of the parties with the approval of the governing body and second by adoptiol of an ordinance. The General Assembly certainly knows the meaning of the word "sale". The concept of vacating a plat against the wishes of all of the owners of lots in the subdivision is completely novel to him. It is important to consider that all of the other sections of State law providing for vacation of a plat, states that it has to be with the agreement of all of the owners of property within the particular subdivision, except this one section. The statute which outlines the affect of vacating this plat does not mention recombining the lots. He is not sure the Board will get the desired effect if this ordinance is adopted. This procedure, going on here today, raises an uncertainty in title to practically every lot in an approved subdivision in the County. There Ks no time limit on the statute which th~ Board is proceeding under. The Board would be creating a great deal of uncertainty as to the validity of approved plats under this procedure. There also is the risk that Mr. Wood could have sold Lot 8B. The family division ordinance said the new lot cannot be sold for a year, it does not mention the residue. The Board is also putting a burden on the staff. The staff must rely on notes and statements from certified land surveyors in the community. If the staff can't rely on that information, then it must go out and field test all these items. The procedural issues involved here and the consequences are very important. A building site of at least 30,000 square feet can be found on both lots to satisfy the five to one ratio requirement. He presented a drawing prepared from a topographic map with a surveyor's certificate affixed. The map shows the areas of the critical slope based on actual physical survey. The map also shows the septic setbacks from the stream. The narrowest dimension on Lot 8B is in the back inside corner. The surveyor redid his calculations and found that there were 66,188 square feet of buildable area on Lot 8B. The subdivision ordinance does not require notification to abutting property owners for family division. The notation on the original subdivision plat encumbrances a requirement of the subdivision ordinance. The provisions of the subdivision ordinance are not applicable to family division~. Mr. Horne approved this plat acting as agent for the Planning Commission August 20, 1986 (Adjourned Meeting from August 13, f986) (Page 3) .... · · and his approval of the plat is tantamount to Planning Commission approval. There is nothing in the ordinance requiring Planning Commission consideration. The Health Department consid- ered the application for these two lots and did not find any reasons why two septic drainfield sites were not available on each lot. He does not believe the Board should adopt this ordinance. The consequences of vacating a plat under this procedure is a nightmare from a lawyer's standpoint. He does not think State law authorizes the Board to do so because the applicable State law the Board is proceed- ing under applies only when there has been a lot sold. The specific objections raised by Mr. Edgerton with regard to these particular lots have no merit. Mr. Fisher said he does not know the intent of the General Assembly when creating the family division provisions. He then asked if Mr. & Mrs. Wood reside on this property. Mr. Wiley said there is no house on the property. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. & Mrs. Wood owned this property prior to March, 1986. Mr. Wiley said the property was purchased in 1986. Mr. Fisher asked where Mr. & Mrs. Wood reside. Mr. Wiley said he does not think that is relevant, but they live in Waynesboro. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. & Mrs. Wood has ever lived in Albemarle County. Mr. Wiley said he does not know. Mr. Fisher said he is asking these questions to understand, in his mind, the concept of the family division and whether this is what the General Assembly might have contemplated when the legislation was drafted. He sees a conflict between the normal subdivision process and the process that the State requires for family divisions. He is not sure the legislature ever contemplated this set of circumstances where a nonresident person would buy property, divide the property, and presumably sell the property. Mr. Wiley said he is more inclined to go by statements than by intent. The General Assembly stated that the subdivision ordinance shall include reasonable provisions Of providing for division of land between immediate family members without going through all the rigmarole of the subdivision ordinance. The words have to speak for themselves. There is nothing that indicates that the Woods do not intend to build on the properties and live there. Mr. Fisher asked if the husband will live on one lot and the wife will live on the other lot. Mr. Wiley said that would be running contrary to the concept of homesteading. He thinks that the reason "spouse" was included was as a way of dividing family property so that it could be disposed of differently than just homesteading. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Wiley if he wanted to make any statement of intent for his clients as to whether or not they intend to reside on either or both of the properties. Mr. Wiley replied no; he does not think it is relevant to considera- tion. Mr, Bowie commented that Mr. Wiley made a statement earlier that he was not aware until today that this matter was being considered, yet there is a letter on file dated July 24 concerning the matter with the Woods receiving a copy. He asked if the Woods received the letter. Mr. Wiley said he did not know this issue was being considered at prior meetings of the Board, which he believes was rather extensive. Mr. Fisher said this matter was placed on the agenda at the request of a citizen. Following that discussion the Board decided to hold this hearing so that it could hear from both parties and not take action without both parties having an opportunity to be present. Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. Wiley commented that the newly created lot could not be sold for a year, but the remains of the original lot could be sold immediately, and asked if that was the intention of the property owners. Mr. Wiley said that is how he interprets the statue; however it is not relevant. Mr. Lindstrom asked which is the new lot and which the old lot. Mr. Wiley said the new lot is the one transferred to the new owner; lot 8A was transferred to Mrs. Wood. Mrs. Cooke said she is confused about the family division. It was her understanding that family divisions had to be made to a member of the family and that a husband could not deed something to a wife. When the property was divided and a house built, the family member had to reside on the piece of property a year before it could be sold. Mr. Payne said the ordi- nance defines family division as a single division of a lot or parcel for the purpose of sale or gift to a member of the immediate family of the owner of such lot or parcel. The term "member of the immediate family" is defined as the natural or legally defined offspring, spouse or parent of the owner of the lot or parcel of land. There is no requirement in the ordinance or statute expressly with respect to any residence. The ordinance requires that it not be conveyed by the recipient family member to a third party for a year. Mrs. Cooke said that at the end of the year the property does not have to revert back to the family grouping. Mr. Payne said that is correct. The ordinance does permit the following situation. A father conveys half of his ten acre lot to his son. The son retains the ownership of the lot for 12 months and one day, and then conveys to a third party. That is not unlawful. Mr. Bowie asked if a noncounty resident could be restricted. be unconstitutional. Mr. Payne said that would Mr. Gouldman said the heart of the matter is whether these lots have 30,000 square feet of buildable area that can comply with the five to one ratio. He thinks that the Zoning Ordinance does not allow inclusion of setbacks. The Ordinance states that the septic system must be within the 30,000 square feet. By definition, the setback lines cannot be part of the building site. Mr. Fisher commented that Mr. Gouldman is saying that by definition a building site has to be a place where a building can be located. Mr. Gouldman said the septic fields have to be on slopes that are even more gentle than the building area. Mr. Fisher asked if the lots must have two useable drainfield sites. Mr. Agnor said yes; the County has always allowed septic drainfields to be built within the setback lines. The setback is for the protection of the adjacent property owner from anything being built above ground. Mr. William Edgerton said the approval referred to by Mr. Wiley is the standard approval given by the Health Department. The approval states that the lot sizes are such that there appears to be enough area to install septic drainfields. Because of the concerns he expressed five years ago, the same engineer was unable to convince the County Engineer that there was adequate septic location on this six acre piece of land to support four drainfields ~s required by the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the requirements were less severe th~n they are presently. Now apparently the same engineer is certifying that on the same piece~f land there are four septic drainfield sites. He is not convinced that the sites are available. 198 August 20, 1986 (Adjourned Meeting from August 13, 1986) (Page 4) Mr. Wiley said in Section 4.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance it states "the term building site shall mean a contiguous area of land in slopes less than 25 percent as determined by ... exclusive of such area as may be located in the Flood Hazard Overlay District and which is located under water." The ordinance does not mention anything about excluding an area within 100 feet of streams. Septic systems being in no greater than 20 percent slopes is merely a directive and not a specific requirement. "In the review for the issuance of a permit for the installation of a septic system ... and particularly mindful of the intent to discourage location of septic tanks and/or drainfields in slopes of 20 percent or greater." It would not: be appropriate to deprive a person of his right to build on the property. The only approval available is the Health Department's standard approval. Through his conversations with Mr. Buddy Edwards, one of the engineers, he was informed that the original plat showed these lots as two lots. Mr. Edwards said they were prepared to back that up but were more interested in getting the subdivision approved, put to record and getting Mr. Edgerton off of their backs. That is the reason the lots were put together as one lot. With no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher asked if the subdivision plat that was approved under the family division provisions is the exact same subdivision that was rejected by the Planning Commission in 1981. Mr. Wiley said yes, except the request in 1981 was withdrawn. Mr. Bowie asked if the Zoning Administrator, the County Engineer, and the Director of Planning have now all determined that the five to one ratio can be met and there is 30,000 square feet buildable sites available. Mr. Agnor said that is correct. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Gouldman if he contends that the area excludes the 100 foot setback not only for building structures above ground, but for construction of a drainfield. Mr. Gouldman replied yes. Mr. Fisher asked if the area excludes construction of a well also. Mr. Gouldman said a structure is a structure and does not stop being a structure because it is underground. Mr. Fisher said the definition of a building site read by Mr. Wiley causes him consider- able problems because it is very obvious that on a long strip of land where there is a 50 foot or 75 foot setback, a person could end up with much of the land area for the building site in setback areas and not a buildable area. It is conceivable that the entire thing could be basically defined that way under the interpretation made by staff. It seems to him that a discussion should follow on the definition of building sites to make sure everyone is in agreement as to what it means for future divisions. Mr. Gouldman said the definition of a building site cannot be isolated from the remaining language of the ordinance. Mr. Fisher said this is a classic case of a subdivision plat brought before the County for consideration five years ago under the same ordinances it is operating under today. It was considered by ~the staff and Planning Commission, and it is his recollection that the application was withdrawn by the applicant because the Planning Commission was not going to approve it. The Planning Commission placed a note on the plat because it knew there were problems. The matter came before the Board of Supervisors and was left with this parcel of land undivided. The exclusion that the legislature has built in for family divisions seems to indicate that it is okay if it is a family division even when it is in a circumstance he doubts the legislature contemplated for a family division. He is worried about their intent. It is an issue that he would almost invite the courts to review. He does not make comments like that very often. It seems to him that the real issue is the intent of the legislature with regards to family division and for the process being accomplished with no public notice. He does not believe that the General Assembly fully intended a circumstance such as this where the application would be reviewed by an administrator and signed off on in the presence of expressed concern by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors of such a division taking place. He does suspect that the staff thought it was following the rules of the family division. He would like to hear a judge's ruling on this Case. It might be useful in trying to change State law and it might have a greater impact on future development in this area and other parts of the State. If the Board does not take some action, every developer in this State is going to use the family division as a way of trying to avoid the County's subdivision requirements. He feels the Board should put up a fight. Another issue is whether a subdivi- sion should take place through an administrative decision when the Planning Commission has said it should not happen. Mr. Bowie said he does not want to argue the intent of the General Assembly. The size of the building site was determined through the same methods as used for other building sites; the square footage and the five to one ratio. He is not sure the drainfields are an issue but there is the letter from the Health Department. He does not think "family division," or the one year limit is an issue. Whatever happens in a year will comply with the law. He person- ally can see many reasons why spouses would divide property even though they are living together. The other issue of what the word "shall" means and to him it means "it is supposed to be that way". He thinks that compliance has been within the law. He is not basing his decision on what he thinks the General Assembly intended to do. Mr. Henley said he disagrees with Mr. Bowie one hundred percent. He thinks that it stinks that somebody could use the family division to do what these people are doing. He has four children, and he has given them land to build a house and, eventually because of this happening he will not be able to give those children any land. Mr. Lindstrom said he has studied the State statue very carefully. It contains a state- ment, "The family division shall not be used to circumvent the purpose of this chapter and code." He agrees with Mr. Henley. There cannot be too many other conclusions drawn other than this has directly circumvented the purpose of the subdivision ordinance. Overlooking the note on the plat shows a lack of understanding of how the Planning staff and the County staff operate. He had a personal experience with family division. He stood to financially benefit by using the family division provision, but declined to do so. He advises clients that if they have any intention other than setting up a lot for a family member who is going to live there then the person is trying to circumvent the ordinance. He feels very strongly about the subdivision ordinance. He does not believe this particular plat is consistent with the August 20, 1986 (Adjourned Meeting from August 13, 1986) 199 subdivision ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to adopt an ordinance to vacate a certain plat of a portion of Pheasant Lane Subdivision; a plat recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court in Deed Book, 870, Page 344. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. She has also had experience with the family division. This has been a long-standing concern of hers and she thinks that the issue has to be addressed It is time for the Board to set a precedent on how it is going to handle these matters in the future. Mr. Henley said he is going to support this motion for the reasons stated by Mr. Lindstrom. If the two lots met the requirements of the subdiVision ordinance he would not be supporting the motion. He feels that the Woods are doing exactly as stated by Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Lindstrom if he thought this purchase was an attempt to circumvent the subdivision ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom responded yes, by using the family division provisions. Mr. Bowie then asked Mr. Wood if he intends to live on the property. Mr. Wood responded that he has not decided. He purchased the property because he thought it was in a good neighborhood. His wife has shown interest in living on the property, but no plans have been made. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Way. (Note: The ordinance as adopted is set out below.) AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE A CERTAIN PLAT OF A PORTION OF PHEASANT LANE SUBDIVISION; THIS PROPERTY IS SHOWN ON A PLAT RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT IN DEED BOOK 870, PAGE 344. WHEREAS, a certain lot or parcel of land lying in Albemarle County has been heretofore subdivided into two lots, the plat of which is of record in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 870, page 344; and WHEREAS, it appears that all the lots in said subdivision are still owned by the original developers; and WHEREAS, the Board has received evidence that the said plat was approved for recordation in error in violation of the County's Zoning and Land Subdivision Ordinances; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County has determined that the said plat should be vacated in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the subdivision of land shown on the plat recorded in the said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 870, page 344, be, and the same hereby is, vacated; 2. That the vacation set forth in Section 1 of this ordinance shall in no way vacate any other street, road, right of way or lot duly platted and recorded; 3. That the Clerk of the Board shall cause a certified copy hereof to be recorded in the said Clerk's office to be indexed in name of the developers, James L. Wood and Roberta N. Wood; 4. That this ordinance shall be effective upon adoption. (The Board recessed at 4:35 P.M. and reconvened at 4:40 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 2. Public Hearing: Proposed financing by the Charlottesville Redevelop- ment and Housing Authority of its housing revenue bonds pursuant to the Housing Authorities Law to assist Sigma Phi Renovation Limited Partnership, Kappa Sigma Renovation Limited Partner- ship, and Sigma Nu Renovation Limited Partnership in the renovation of certain fraternity houses. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 8 and August 13, 1986.) Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum dated August 20, 1986 from his office to the Board: "In June 1985, the Board of Supervisors adopted a Conservation Plan for a portion of the University lying within Albemarle County (Rugby-Culbreth- University Avenue District). In addition, the Board authorized the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority to issue and sell its revenue bonds to finance the rehabilitation of properties located within this area. The University has recently made a similar request to the County to allocate $975,000 of its local Industrial Development Bond allocation ($4.395 million) for purposes of renovating the Sigma Phi, Kappa Sigma and Sigma Nu fraternity houses located within the adopted Conservation 200 August 20, 1986 (Adjourned Meeting from August 13, 1986) (Page 6) been made to date and-the local allocation reverts back to the state reserve after August 29, 1986. A public hearing on this matter is required, and a copy of the necessary resolution from the Board to accomplish the bond issuance is attached." Mr. Agnor said this will finish the program of renovation of fraternity housing for the University. Mr. Fisher asked for a report on the fraternity houses that have been renovated. Mr. Agnor said the one house approved by the County for financing has been finished. The building's usage and appearance are greatly improved. The house is now being maintained unde strict contractual arrangements between the University and the fraternity so that deteriora- tion does not reoccur. There are some houses in the City under renovation since summer. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Ray Hunt, Vice President for the University of Virginia, addressed the Board. There are actually six fraternity houses in the County. A total of four houses have been renovated. Chi Phi House which is also in this district, has embarked on its own program and is not using this method for renovation. There is one more house for possible renovation in the future, but the limited partnership's future use is unclear. There are 51 total houses in the district. There are four or five other properties in the process of being renovated using other mechanisms. It has been a very successful financial program. The support being requested today is for $975,000 to be split between three houses and reaffirmation of the conservation district. Mrs. Cooke asked how much housing these renovations will provide. Mr. Hunt said the 51 houses in the district can house approximately 1000 students; approximately 10 percent of the undergraduate population. On an average, 25 students live in each house. The University, on grounds, has 6300 housing units. Mr. Hunt invited the Board members to come view the renova- ted houses. Mrs. Cooke asked if there are guidelines as to the number of students that can live in a fraternity house. Mr. Hunt said these houses will meet all fire and safety code standards. The University has the problem of attempting the fill the houses to capacity. The financial liability of the program is based on gaining rents from the students. Approximatel~ 50 percent of the brothers of a fraternity live in the houses, but all of them are responsibli for the upkeep. Upkeep does take constant vigilance on the part of the University, but it is hoped to be a successful program. Mr. Fisher commented that he senses that the University is going to exert a greater control over how these buildings are maintained. Mr. Hunt said a differentiation must be mad( between the University and the Historic Renovation Corporation as a separate company, acting as general partner. The properties that are under HRC, have specific individual leases with the students as well as leases with the Housing Corporation that set forth specific require- ments. Revisions are being made to tighten the requirements more. They feel, as a landlord that the normal requirements of a landlord should be exercised. When these buildings are complete, the living conditions will be much improved. The Board of Visitors wanted to find way to make the properties safe. The Board did not want the students living in substandard, unsafe situations. There has been a lot of support from the Alumni, the County and the City. With no one else from the public to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt the following resolutions authorizing the allocation of $975,000 of the County's local Industrial Development Bond allocation for purposes of renovating the Sigm~ Phi, Kappa Sigma and Sigma Nu fraternity houses located within the boundaries of the Conser- vation District established by the County. Mr. Henley seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. None. Mr. Way. Mr. Agnor commented that there is also a certificate attached to the resolutions which an Internal Revenue Service Code requirement stating that the Board members have taken this action without any consideration of any bribe, gift, gratuity or direct or indirect contribu- tion to any political campaign. There is space available for six signatures, but only one signature is required. There was no discussion of the certificate. (Note: The resolutions as adopted are set out below.) WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia (the "Board"), after a public hearing following reasonable public notice, has considered the application of Sigma Phi Renovation Limited Partnership, a Virginia limited partnership, Madison Hall, University Avenue, Charlottesville, Virginia 22906-9012 (the "Appli- cant'') for the issuance of a housing revenue bond by the Charlottes- ville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (the "Authority") in an amount up to $300,000 (the "Bond") to assist in the financing of the Applicant's renovation of a fraternity house and residential facility constituting a historic property and conservation project (the "Project"). The Project will be leased in part to Alpha of Virginia, Sigma Phi, Incorporated and in part to individuals. The Project will be located at 163 Rugby Road in a Conservation District established in Albemarle County, Virginia (the "County"); WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested the Board to approve the issuance of the Bond to comply with Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, (the "Code") and Paragraph 2 of Chapter 514 of the Acts of the General Assembly of Virginia of 1983; WHEREAS, a copy of the fiscal impact statement required by Paragraph 2 of Chapter 514 of the Acts of the General Assembly of Virginia of 1983, has been filed with the Board; and August 20, 1986 (Adjourned Meeting from August 13, 1986) (Page 7) 201 WHEREAS, Section 103(n),f the Code and Executive Order 54(85) upon the County a Local Allocation, as defined in'the Order of $4,395,000 of bonds that may be issued to finance facilities located in the County, none of which has yet been allocated to facilities located in the County; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board approves the proposed issuance of the Bond by the Authority for the benefit of the Applicant, to the extent required by the federal and state laws referred to above, to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project. 2. The foregoing approval of the proposed issuance of the Bond does not constitute an endorsement of the Bond, the financial viability of the Project or the creditworthiness of the Applicant. As required by Section 36-29 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, the Bond shall provide that neither the Commonwealth of Virginia, the County, the City of Charlottesville nor the Authority shall be obligated to pay the Bond or the interest thereon or other costs incident thereto except from revenues and moneys pledged therefor and neither the faith and credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth, the County, the City of Charlottesville or the Authority shall be pledged thereto. 3. The Board hereby allocates $300,000 of its Local Allocation to the issuance of the Bond for the Project. 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. The allocation made in Paragraph 3 above shall be void if the Bond is not issued on or before August 29, 1986. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia (the "Board"), after a public hearing following reasonable public notice, has considered the application of Kappa Sigma Renovation Limited Partnership, a Virginia limited partnership, Madison Hall, University Avenue, Charlottesville, Virginia 22906-9012 (the "Appli- cant'') for the issuance of a housing revenue bond by the Charlottes- ville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (the "Authority") in an amount up to $300,000 (the "Bond") to assist in the financing of the Applicant's renovation of a fraternity house and residential facility constituting a historic property and conservation project (the "Project"). The Project will be leased in part to the Bologna Society of the University of Virginia, and in part to individuals. The Project will be located at 165 Rugby Road in a Conservation District established in Albemarle County, Virginia (the "County"); WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested the Board to approve the issuance of the Bond to comply with Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, (the "Code") and Paragraph 2 of Chapter 514 of the Acts of the General Assembly of Virginia of 1983; WHEREAS, a copy of the fiscal impact statement required by Paragraph 2 of Chapter 514 of the Acts of the General Assembly of Virginia of 1983, has been filed with the Board; and WHEREAS, Section 103(n) of the Code and Executive Order 54(85) (Revised) of the Governor of Virginia (the "Order") have imposed upon the County a Local Allocation, as defined in the Order of $4,395,000 of bonds that may be issued to finance facilities located in the County, none of which has yet been allocated to facilities located in the County; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board approves the proposed issuance of the Bond by the Authority for the benefit of the Applicant, to the extent required by the federal and state laws referred to above, to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project. 2. The foregoing approval of the proposed issuance of the Bond does not constitute an endorsement of the Bond, the financial viability of the Project or the creditworthiness of the Applicant. As. required by Section 36-29 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, the Bond shall provide that neither the Commonwealth of Virginia, the County, the City of Charlottesville nor the Authority shall be obligated to pay the Bond or the interest thereon or other costs incident thereto except from revenues and moneys pledged therefor and neither the faith and credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth, the County, the City of Charlottesville or the Authority shall be pledged thereto. 3. The Board hereby allocates $300,000 of its Local Allocation to the issuance of the Bond for the Project. 202 August 20, 1986 (Adjourned Meeting. from August 13, 1986) (Page 8) 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. The allocation made in Paragraph 3 above shall be void if the Bond is not issued on or before August 29, 1986. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia (the "Board"), after a public hearing following reasonable public notice, has considered the application of Sigma Nu Renovation Limited Partnership, a Virginia limited partnership, Madison Hall, University Avenue, Charlottesville, Virginia 22906-9012 (the "Appli- cant'') for the issuance of a housing revenue bond by the Charlottes- ville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (the "Authority") in an amount up to $375,000 (the "Bond") to assist in the financing of the Applicant's renovation of a fraternity house and residential facility constituting a historic property and conservation project (the "Project"). The Project will be leased in part to the Hopkins Society of the Sigma Nu Fraternity and in part to individuals. The Project will be located at 1830 Carrs Hill Road in a Conservation District established in Albemarle County, Virginia (the "County"); WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested the Board to approve the issuance of the Bond to comply with Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, (the "Code") and Paragraph 2 of Chapter 514 of the Acts of the General Assembly of Virginia of 1983; WHEREAS, a copy of the fiscal impact statement required by Paragraph 2 of Chapter 514 of the Acts of the General Assembly of Virginia of 1983, has been filed with the Board; and WHEREAS, Section 103(n) of the Code and Executive Order 54185) (Revised) of the Governor of Virginia (the "Order") have imposed upon the County a Local Allocation, as defined in the Order of $4,395,000 of bonds that may be issued to finance facilities located in the County, none of which has yet been allocated to facilities located in the County; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board approves the proposed issuance of the Bond by the Authority for the benefit of the Applicant, to the extent required by the federal and state laws referred to above, to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project. 2. The foregoing approval of the proposed issuance of the Bond does not constitute an endorsement of the Bond, the financial viability of the Project or the creditworthiness of the Applicant. As required by Section 36-29 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, the Bond shall provide that neither the Commonwealth of Virginia, the County, the City of Charlottesville nor the Authority shall be obligated to pay the Bond or the interest thereon or other costs incident thereto except from revenues and moneys pledged therefor and neither the faith and credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth, the County, the City of Charlottesville or the Authority shall be pledged thereto. 3. The Board hereby allocates $375,000 of its Local Allocation to the issuance of the Bond for the Project. 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. The allocation made in Paragraph 3 above shall be void if the Bond is not issued on or before August 29, 1986. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mr. Agnor requested that Agenda Item No. 14, Affirm Purchase Option - Southern Regional Park, from tonight's agenda be taken up at this time. Mr. Tucker said the County has secured a 120 day option on property the staff was direc- ted to study for its feasibility as a Southern Regional Park. The property is a 416-acre site located on Route 631, less than one mile from Route 708 on Walnut Branch which flows into the Hardware River. The purchase price of the property is $293,000. Mr. Agnor signed the purchase option on Monday and the staff immediately started advertising a RFP to study the feasibility of the site. A lake is planned for the site. There will be a preliminary master plan drafted. If this site is feasible for the intended use, the staff will prepare an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for approval by the Planning Commission and the Board. The master plan will be part of the feasibility report. Mr. Payne said action required by the Board today is ratification that Mr. Agnor acted on behalf of the County. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to confirm that Mr. Agnor was authorized to sign a purchase option for the Southern Regional Park. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Way. August 20, 1986 (Adjourned Meeting from August 13, 1986) (Page 9) Mr. Fisher said he has received a notice that the Greene County Board of Supervisors will hold a joint public hearing with the Greene County Planning Commission on next Tuesday to consider a rezoning petition for property which either adjoins or is directly across the road from County property. The petitioner is Forrest and Jean K. Roark, property adjacent to Route 645. Mr. Fisher handed the notice to Mr. Agnor and asked that he see if the County has any property adjoining the request. Mr. Fisher said he received a letter from Hunton & Williams, a law firm in Richmond, representing United Virginia Bank. The letter states "The Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation is considering changes to the intersection of Rio Road and Rt. 29 North. Those changes could have a material and adverse impact upon the operation by the bank of its branch. Therefore, I would appreciate your directing this letter to the response of a staff person and request that he forward to me copies of the latest plans for the intersection, anticipated time schedule, dates of public hearing scheduled and any other information that is relevant to the bank's interest." Mr. Agnor said he thinks it would be appropriate for the legal staff to respond. Mr. Payne said he thinks the appropriate response is to inform Hunton & Williams that all of this information is available and if there are specific questions, to request such information. It is incumbent on them to compile information on general questions such as this. It is possible that this was directed to the County because of the six-year highway plan. He is reluctant to commit the County to providing information on a request this gene- ral. Mr. Fisher handed the letter to Mr. Payne and asked that he respond as necessary. Mr. Lindstrom said he received a registered letter from a constituent,^Ingleside~ concern- ing a drainage problem which he though~had been resolved. Mr. Tucker said the staff is still following the problem. A drainage structure has been prepared, but not completed. A good job of backfilling around the structure has not taken place. The staff is working with the owner. There was a meeting held Monday morning. There may be a need to call the bond. He intends to suggest to Mr. Armm, County Engineer, perhaps having a contingency fund so that the Engineering Department can get the work done more rapidly. Mr. Lindstrom commented that this has been going on for about a year. It has to do with improvements that are required by the ordinance. Agenda Item No. 5. Adjournment. Mr. Agnor requested an executive session for the discussion of personnel matters. At 5:10 P.M., Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to that effect. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. None. None. At 7:29 P.M., the Board reconvened into open session, and immediately adjourned. CHAiR~A~N~ August 20, 1986 (Adjourned Meeting from August 13, 1986) (Page 9) Mr. Fisher said he has received a notice that the Greene County Board of Supervisors will hold a joint public hearing with the Greene County Planning Commission on next Tuesday to consider a rezoning petition for property which either adjoins or is directly across the~road from County property. The petitioner is Forrest and Jean K. Roark, property adjacent to Route 645. Mr. Fisher handed the notice to Mr. Agnor and asked that he see if the County has any property adjoining the request. Mr. Fisher said he received a letter from representing United Virginia Bank. The letter Transportation is considering changes to the in changes could have a material and adverse impac Therefore, I would appreciate your directing th request that he forward to me copies of the lat time schedule, dates of public hearing schedule the bank's interest." Mr. Agnor said he thinks respond. Mr. Payne said he thinks the appropri that all of this information is available and i information. this. plan. ral. ~unton & Williams, a law firm in Richmond, states "The Virginia Department of Highways & tersection of Rio Road and Rt. 29 North. Those t upon the operation by the bank of its branch. is letter to the response of a staff person and ~st plans for the intersection, anticipated ~ and any other information that is relevant to it would be appropriate for the legal staff to ~te response is to inform Hunton & Williams there are specific questions, to request such It is incumbent on them to compil, information on general questions such as It is possible that this was directed to the County because of the six-year highway He is reluctant to commit the County to providing information on a request this gene- Mr. Fisher handed the letter to Mr. Payne and asked that he respond as necessary. Mr. Lindstrom said he received a registere~ ing a drainage problem which he though~had been following the problem. A drainage structure ha: of backfilling around the structure has not take There was a meeting held Monday morning. There suggest to Mr. Armm, County Engineer, perhaps hi Department can get the work done more rapidly. going on for about a year. It has to do with i~ Agenda Item No. 5. Adjournment. Mr. Agno~ discussion of personnel matters. At 5:10 P.M., The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie, roll was recorded vote: letter from a constituent,^Ingleside~ concern- resolved. Mr. Tucker said the staff is still ~ been prepared, but not completed. A good job ~n place. The staff is working with the owner. may be a need to call the bond. He intends to ~ving a contingency fund so that the Engineering Mr. Lindstrom commented that this has been ~rovements that are required by the ordinance. : requested an executive session for the Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to that effect. ~alled and the motion carried by the following AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. At 7:29 P.M., the Board Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. reconvened into open session, and immediately adjourned.