1986-09-03September 3, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
225
(NOTE: An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors which had been scheduled for
September 3, 1986, at 4:00 P.M., to review plans for reconstruction of Route 29 North was
cancelled at the request of the Chairman of the Board since the required information was not
available for said meeting.)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
September 3, 1986, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room ~7, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E.
Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr. (who arrived at 7:35 P.M.), C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. Frederick W. Payne,
Deputy County Attorney; Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development;
and Mr. Michael Armm, County Engineer.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:31 P,M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Fisher, who announced that the Board had been scheduled to meet earlier today
to discuss the plans with the Highway Department for Route 29, North. He was advised by
staff yesterday afternoon that no such plans are yet available from the Highway Department.
At that point he made a decision to defer that meeting until a later date. He hopes to be
able to pick a date soon when the Highway Department will have those plans ready for public
discussion.
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to accept the Consent
Agenda items as information. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. There was no further discus-
sion. Roll was called and the motion was carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Item 4.1. Letter dated August 14, 1986, from Mr. Charles L. Conyers, Director, Division
of Compensatory Education, to Mr. N. Andrew Overstreet, Division Superintendent, re. Approval
of Application for support under Chapter 1 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act
for School Year 1986-87 in the amount of $347,503, was received as information.
Mr. Bowie said he assumed that a recommendation will be given to the Board on the grant
that the School Division has received in the amount of $347,503. Mr. Agnor answered that a
recommendation will be coming to the Board from the School Board. Mr. Agnor said the letter
today is only for the Board's information.
Item 4.2. 1986 Statement of Assessed Values for Local Tax Purposes for Railroads and
Interstate Pipeline Transmission Companies, received from the Virginia Department of Taxa-
tion, as information.
Item 4.3. Statement Showing the Equalized Assessed Value of the Property of Gas and
Pipeline Transmission Corporations in Virginia and State Taxes Extended for the Year 1986,
received from the State Corporation Commission as information.
Item 4.4. Statement Showing the Equalized Assessed Value of the Property of Water
Corporations in Virginia and State Taxes Extended for the Year 1986, received from the State
Corporation Commission as information.
Item 4.5. Statement Showing the Equalized Assessed Value of the Property of Telephone
and Telegraph Companies in Virginia and State Taxes Extended for the Year 1986, received from
the State Corporation Commission as information.
Item 4.6. Statement Showing the Equalized Assessed Value of the Property of Electric
Light and Power Corporations in Virginia and State Taxes Extended for the Year 1986, received
from the State Corporation Commission as information.
Agenda Item No. 5.
July 9, 1986).
Road Study:
Roads Not a Part of the Secondary System (deferred from
Mr. Fisher explained that these are a series of roads that have never been taken into
the State System, and were selected by the staff, at the Board's request, fOr review based on
citizen interest. This study represents those roads, which for one reason or another, did
not get brought into the state system when they were originally built. The staff has
investigated ways of trying to correct these problems and to that extent has prepared a staff
report and called this hearing so that the Board can hear from the people who would be most
affected and try to determine what to do next. He asked Mr. Michael Armm, County Engineer,
to present the staff report.
September 3, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Paqe 2)
Mr. Armm stated that these four roads are just a few of many that have not been taken
into the state system, and were selected as top priority roads to be considered by the Board
and the staff. The first one Mr. Armm described was North Berkshire Road, which is just
adjacent to the Charlottesville City line and is the smallest segment of road that is being
considered. It is approximately 300 feet long. Indications of a study by the County
Attorney's office shows that apparently there was no bond taken at the time of its
development which dates back to October, 1960. There is approximately $3,800 of work that
needs to be done, mainly drainage improvements. There is a stream adjacent to this roadway
where an easement will be needed so that the road drainage can get out to the stream. A
surface treatment overlay will also probably have to be done with some prior patching done
before the overlay. Other drainage corrections include reseeding and regrading of the ditch
line in that area. He noted that this road serves apartments and duplexes and no
single-family residential houses are adjacent to this portion of the roadway.
Mr. Lindstrom said a report prepared by Mr. Armm's predecessors, indicated a $2,000
estimated cost. Mr. Armm replied that he is referring to an updated report dated June, 1986.
He believes there were some items left out of the report that Mr. Lindstrom is referring to.
Mr. Armm went on to say that all of the costs that he will be referring to at this meeting
are based on estimates that were done on June 23 by Mr. Tom Trevillian in Mr. Armm's
Department. He asked the Board to also note that these are true construction costs. His
staff has not taken into consideration the need to purchase any easements or additional
rights-of-way, hoping that if this becomes a cooperative project between the County and the
neighbors, that the neighbors will be willing to grant the easements that are needed for
drainage purposes.
Milton Drive is the next road that Mr. Armm described. This roadway is located off of
Route 250 in the eastern portion of the County in Milton Subdivision. It is approximately
2200 feet long and comes to a blunt dead end. According to the report from the County
Attorney's Office, the road was developed prior to any subdivision regulations, zoning or
land use controls in the County. There was no Planning Department or Planning Commission at
that time. The roadway needs to be widened in portions and there are some areas that are on
a steep fill bank which must be properly graded and will probably need both drainage
corrections and guard rail. The end of the road does not have a proper turnaround area, but
some additional right-of-way will be needed so that a cul-de-sac can be installed at the end
of the roadway. The neighborhood is built up with single-family residential homes.
Dunromin Road is located off of Route 676 opposite of Route 660. Mr. Armm explained
that this road is in the Clearview Meadows Subdivision. Its plat was put to record in March
of 1973. There seems to have been some confusion at the time it was accepted, even though
the road was completed and investigated by the VDH&T to be complete and to meet the require-
ments. The bond was subsequently released by the County Zoning Department, but VDH&T would
not take Dunromin Road into the system because there were only two homes on the road at that
time, so it did not meet residency requirements. Over the years, it has deteriorated due to
lack of maintenance. The road needs ditch line improvements, regrading of ditch areas, and
potholes patched. There are some beautiful evergreens growing on the edge of the roadway
that would have to be removed before the road could be taken into the state system. The
revised cost estimate for Dunromin Road is approximately $5,555.
The fourth road that Mr. Armm talked about was Peyton Drive, which joins Greenbrier
Drive and Commonwealth Drive. This is a small segment of roadway that is approximately 800
feet long and is in extremely poor physical condition. This road does not serve any
single-family residential lots, but serves the Comdial parking lot to the rear of Comdial's
property and the Jefferson Towne Apartments, which are at the intersection of Peyton and
Commonwealth. Mr. Armm said that there are some problems with the structure of the pavement
and there appears that there has been base failure. Some of the roadway itself may have to
be dug up and the base replaced before an overlay can be done. Regrading of ditches is
necessary throughout the length of the roadway, and some paved guttering will be needed to
divert drainage down to a stream, which is adjacent to the roadway. The right-of-way needs
to be cleared because there is a lot of overgrowth that is hanging out into the road. There
is probably a need for a tremendous sight distance easement because the road is a quarter of
a circle and winds all the way around as a curve. There is very poor sight distance, coming
from Commonwealth towards Greenbrier Drive on the left hand side and the same situation
coming from Greenbrier back halfway around the curve. This roadway will probably require a
very large area for both drainage and sight easement to the northwest side of the road. The
estimate for Peyton Drive, without any additional land acquisition or easement, is approxi-
mately $32,000.
Mrs. Cooke asked what the traffic count is for Peyton Drive. Mr. Armm responded that
there is no traffic count at this time, because his staff is not sure what category this
roadway will fit into, but it is heavily travelled. It has been pointed out in Mr.
Trevillian's memo to Bob Tucker of June 23, 1986, that the roadway that was just accepted at
Commonwealth Drive required an eleven-inch base with two inches of a topping, so it is very
likely that Peyton Drive does not have the type of base that is required. The estimate now
is assuming that an additional six inches of pavement is required. If the base area is as
bad as it looks from the surfacer there could be areas that have to be dug out and may
possibly need the same eleven inches of base.
Mrs. Cooke asked if the roadway is used mainly by Comdial employees. Mr. Armm answered
that indications are that its greatest use comes from the Comdial parking lot. He believes
that most of the Comdial employees arrive at work through that rear entrance. It does
receive quite a bit of traffic all day long. Mrs. Cooke asked if the road terminates right
at the Comdial parking lot. Mr. Armm said the Comdial gate is only about half of the way
around the quarter circle. Mrs. Cooke asked if through traffic uses that roadway. Mr. Armm
responded that this roadway is the main connection between Commonwealth and Greenbrier, and
they are both heavily travelled roads. Mr. Armm said that for the 800 feet, this roadway
probably carries the highest dollar per foot of all four roads that his staff is considering.
227
September 3, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Fisher asked the estimate for the repairs on Milton Drive. Mr. Armm answered that
Milton Drive will require approximately $29,400. He pointed out that easements were not
figured for Milton Drive, but because of the way the road winds, there is quite a need for
sight distance easements. In many cases, it probably will be just a matter of clearing trees
or vegetation, but there could be some grading. Some of the driveways and properties come
out steeply to the road and may have to be regraded.
Mr. Fisher asked if Milton Drive is a dead end, and if it is used only by the people who
live on it. Mr. Armm replied, "yes," to Mr. Fisher's question, and stated that the work on
Milton Drive would be a local improvement. Mrs. Cooke asked if the residents on Milton Drive
would be willing to help with the rights-of-way for a cul-de-sac or a turnaround at the end
of this roadway. Mr. Armm told Mrs. Cooke that he is not aware that this has been discussed
with the residents who would be affected by it. He believes it would be shared among four
lots, so hopefully the amount of land taken from each one would be minimal.
Mr. Bowie mentioned that in both the County Attorney's memo and in the briefing memo, it
is stated that if 75 percent of the owners agree in writing, the other 25 percent, even if
they don't agree, can be assessed whatever their fair share would be to finish paving the
road. The residents, if 75 percent agree, would be assessed to provide the total amount
equal to half of the construction costs.
Mr. Lindstrom commented that if one owner, assuming there are no other right-of-way
problems, offers to put up half of the construction costs, there is no impediment to the
County to put up the other half. He then asked if in order to assess an unwilling owner,
there would have to be 75 percent of the other owners willing to pay. Mr. Armm
answered, "yes."
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Payne to summarize the choices that the Board has for trying to
fund these roads. He mentioned that in the case of North Berkshire if the property owners
contributed all of the funds, this could be done simply. Mr. Payne agreed that if the
property owners will contribute the funds, that is the obvious way to do it. But, he does
not see any impediment to the County paying all of it. The way that this situation is
contemplated by State statute is the way it is described in Mr. St. John's letter (letter
dated June 27, 1986, addressed to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., on file in the Clerk's Office),
and that is the assessment of the property owners fronting on the road.
Mr. Fisher asked if there were not two steps that need to be taken before the owners are
assessed. One: if the property owners agree to pay the whole thing, or two: if the property
owners agree to pay half of the cost and the Highway Department will agree to pay the other
half. Mr. Payne answered that the Highway Department will not participate at all. The
Highway Department has a policy that is somewhat mysterious to Mr. Payne concerning the
County's private roads ordinance. The money will probably have to come from the County.
Mr. Fisher tried to clarify the matter by saying that the second option is that if the
property owners agree to put up half of the money, and if the County agrees to put up the
other half the project can go forward without any question of needing assessments against
unwilling owners. Mr. Fisher said that the third option is that if a lot of the property
owners want to go forward with the project, but a few do not, then there is the possible
question of assessing to raise the other half of the funds. Mr. Payne said that Mr. Fisher
is correct. He said this is a traditional means of making public improvements. In cities,
improvements such as sidewalks and drainage can be done without 75 percent approval. He
stated that the three options that Mr. Fisher pointed out are the most obvious, but the
fourth option would be for the County to pay the whole thing.
Mr. Bowie mentioned that there are two problems. One is paying for the projects, and
the other is rights-of-way. He is particularly interested in Milton Drive. He pointed out
on the map where there is one curve where the sight distance is a problem. He said that the
Board has just been told that there is a requirement for a turnaround. Regardless of whether
the residents are willing to raise enough money for half of the funding, the people don't
want their front lawns cut out or their driveways cut out. He asked if the people do not
want to donate their property, will it become a dead issue, without undertaking condemnation
procedures. Mr. Payne answered that in the absence of condemnation, it will become a dead
issue. He said that one thing that he has not researched is that as far as Milton Drive is
concerned, since this subdivision was not done pursuant to an approved subdivision plat,
there may be some question, as to whether the right-of-way was ever appropriately dedicated
and accepted. Mr. Bowie asked if the right-of-way on Milton Drive has not been appropriately
dedicated, and if the owners do not wish to donate the right-of-way for the cul-de-sac, then
does it become mute. Mr. Payne answered that it does become mute, in the absence of
condemnation.
Mr. Fisher stated that the Board basically has before it all of these road issues such
as the structure of the roads, the rights-of-way, easements, and cul-de-sacs at the end.
Some of the roads are in better shape and easier to bring into the system than others, and
many of the roads have very high traffic volumes. He asked Mr. Armm why these four roads
were selected out of all of the ones that were on the list. Mr. Armm said that his under-
standing is that these four roads were probably the most likely where the neighbors and
adjoining property owners would be willing to cooperate. Some of the roads would take the
least amount of work to get into the state system, with the exception of Peyton Drive. He
thinks Peyton Drive was included, even though the costs are high, because of its importance.
It connects Greenbrier and Commonwealth and carries quite a bit of traffic. He thinks it was
felt that right now it is a hazard and an eyesore to everybody. The other three roadways
already have been primed and the conditions seemed right for their acceptance into the
system.
Mr. Fisher opened the Public Hearing and asked for comments from property owners. He
said that in order to structure the hearing, he would ask for comments on the roads in the
order they were presented by the staff. He asked if anyone was present who wished to speak
about North Berkshire. No one rose to speak.
22'8
September 3, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Fisher then asked if anyone wanted to speak about Milton Drive.
everybody would stand up who had come in support of Milton Drive.
Mr. Bowie asked if
Mr. Franklin White spoke relative to Milton Drive and said that the residents would like
to know what needs to be done to get this road project started, and how close the estimate
will be to what a contractor will charge to bring the road up to state specifications. Mr.
Fisher answered Mr. White's question about the estimate by saying that this will not be know~
until bids are received. And, he does not think the County is at that point, yet. This
estimate is the best guess available at this time. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. White if the
residents want the road brought into the state system. Mr. White replied that the biggest
majority want the road brought into the state system. He said that there are a couple of
people on the street who are not sure if they can come up with the money at the present time.
He mentioned that the neighborhood does have an organization that collects $120 a year from
residents for paving of the road.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. White if he thinks the property owners would be willing to contrib-
ute up to $15,000 in order to get this road brought into the state system or to have them-
selves assessed at that amount of money by the County, if there are a few who do not want to
participate. Mr. White said he could ask the residents, and he knows that he is willing to
contribute his share of the money. Mr. Fisher wanted to know how many properties are in-
volved. Mr. White answered that there are 14 lots, but there are two lots undeveloped. He
mentioned that there is a man who is on the left of the road and uses Shadwell Drive for his
entrance. This man has not been cooperative about keeping the road upgraded.
Mr. Lindstrom said it would be putting the Milton Drive people on the spot to ask them
to say yes or no tonight, particularly since Milton Drive will have the complexity of
right-of-way. He suggests that on the roads where right-of-way is an issue, that the County
Engineer try to provide some specific data and identify those people who would have to
contribute right-of-way. He understands that the County would agree to pay half of the costs
when the property owners have put up their half.
Mr. Bowie mentioned that he has worked with a number of residents on Milton Drive for
over a year, and they have been raising money with the intent of having the road paved
themselves. However, he has told several of them that if the Board decides to proceed with
this road project, it will take a lot of work. He is happy to work with them, but there is
the right-of-way issue, and the issue of whether or not the money can be raised. He agreed
with Mr. Lindstrom that the residents would have to put up their half of the money first. He
pointed out that the longer this takes, the more money it will cost because of inflation. He
does not think that anybody can commit their neighbors to contributing the money.
Mr. Fisher asked if, under the assessment process, ~the assessment has to be paid off
in one year or is it a multi-year process. Mr. Payne said his remembrance of the statute is
that an assessment is in the nature of a tax. A bill is sent, and if it is not paid, the
property owner is subject to a lien being put on his property for an unpaid assessment. Mr.
Payne has not looked at this statute recently, however.
Mr. Fisher said that usually when something of this nature is done, not everybody wants
to participate. The ones who don't want to do it will dampen the enthusiasm of the others
who will have to pay their share. That is where the process of assessments comes in. If 75
percent of the people want to do it, and if the Board can figure out how to do it, the Board
might consider whether to impose the assessment on all property owners, because everybody
will benefit from the improvements. He mentioned that this is something new for the Board,
and he does not believe it has been done in this County before. He pointed out that propert
owners used to be asked to put up all of the money. This, at least, provides a prospect
where the costs can be shared, even though there are some equity questions involved.
Mr. White mentioned that there is a 50 foot right-of-way all of the way thrOugh Milton
Subdivision. He does not know if this meets the State requirement. Mr. Armm said that the
right-of-way width is appropriate, but the problem is where the cul-de-sac would have to be
put in. The cul-de-sac would take about a 100 feet in diameter. The sight easements would
also have to go wider than a 50 foot right-of-way because of the angles in the road.
Mr. Fisher stated that even a 50 foot road, if it is crooked, would not meet the State
Highway standards. If the residents have a strong interest in this Milton Drive project, the
group better get together with Mr. Armm and-the Highway Department and try to figure out what
will be best for that neighborhood. Mr. Armm suggested a walk-through which would give the
Milton Drive residents a good idea of what they are getting into.
Mr. Lindstrom said that he hoped, as a result of this hearing, that the Board might
adopt a resolution that would delineate what it will do and when it will be done so that the
residents will know what to expect, and the staff will know what it should do next. Mr.
Bowie commented that if a walk-through is organized involving the County Engineer and the
Highway Department, he would like to be notified, and he will be glad to help.
Since no one else was there who wished to speak about Milton Drive, Mr. Fisher stated
that the Board would next hear from the Dunromin Road residents. Mr. W. R. Del Prete, a
resident of Dunromin Road, spoke to the Board. He said that the residents of this road have
been to the Board before, and Mr. Lindstrom has been giving them some advice and assistance.
He commented that relative to having 75 percent of the property owners willing to pay half of
the costs, on Dunromin Road there are only seven lots. This means to get 75 percent from
this group of owners, six out of the seven have to agree. Three of the lots are empty and
four have homes on them. He thinks the 75 percent situation is unfair because four out of
the seven doesn't come anywhere near to 75 percent. He knows that two of the lots are owned
by the same man, and he doesn't have any interest because he lives in Richmond. This knocks
out the 75 percent right away. What are the four families who live on Dunromin Road supposed
to do? The road was built to specifications, but now it is in need of repair. The road is
used by the public. The Highway Department has parked its vehicles down in the cul-de-sac,
and heavy equipment has torn up the road. It is used as a lover's lane and a dumping ground.
September 3, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
The residents wonder if there is any way they can get a waiver for the 75 percent. He feels
that if the four landowners say to do it, the County should assess all seven of the lot
owners.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Payne if the 75 percent issue is addressed in the State Code, and
Mr. Payne answered, "yes." Mr. Del Prete asked how to get around the 75 percent problem. He
said it seems unfair. Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that it does not preclude less than 75
percent of the residents putting up half of the road costs. Mr. Del Prete understands this
but that means that the residents who live on Dunromin Road are improving the other people's
property who may then sell the property.
Mr. Fisher asked if there is a homeowners' association or agreements that the residents
could assess themselves to handle this road situation. Mr. Del Prete answered, "no," there
are only four houses there. Mr. Fisher asked if the reason there is no association is
because the residents thought the road would be taken into the state system. Mr. Del Prete
answered that the residents were told the road was built to state specifications. It doesn't
seem to him that there is a lot of work to be done on the road. Mr. Fisher explained that
the Board does not set the standards for the road nor the 75 percent. He said that the Board
could not do anything about either of the problems. He wonders if something can be worked
out if the residents can come up with half of the money.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the four families who are living on the road support the road
improvements. Mr. Del Prete said, "yes," but one of the four families does not live here,
but that family has indicated that it will support the road improvements. Mr. Lindstrom said
that when this all started, he was under the impression that the County was at fault in that
the bonds had been retired prematurely. But, the State Code did not require that the Highway
Department take the road into the system Until more residents move there. The County could
not legally retain the bond once the road had been built and approved by the Highway Depart-
ment. There is, unfortunately, a statutory gap. Mr. Del Prete said the residents of
Dunromin road are at this hearing to see what they can do that will be the least cost to
themselves. They want to do it legally and properly without taking a lot of the Board's
time. He asked if the residents have no redress but to get 75 percent of the landowners to
agree to pay for the road costs.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that he feels that if the Board contributes half of the money, then
the landowners on Dunromin Road will have to come up with the other half. He suggested that
maybe the owner of the two lots, who lives in Richmond, might not know the procedures. Mr.
Fisher added that he had just been handed a note from Mr. Rogers, who called today from
Richmond. He is the owner of two lots on Dunromin Road, and he said that he is interested in
getting the road into the system, but he is confused because he thought the road was going to
be taken in without anything further being done by the residents. Mr. Del Prete asked for
Mr. Rogers' address and said he would be willing to talk to him. He asked the Board if it
would accept six out of seven of the landowners if they agree to pay half of the road costs.
Mr. Fisher said the Board would accept six out of the seven landowners as 75 percent, but
would prefer all seven so that the County would not have to go through the process of
assessing and special billings, etc. Mr. Del Prete stated that he is sure the seventh
landowner will not willingly pay for the road to be repaired. Mr. Del Prete asked if the
Board will put up 50 percent of the road costs, and the landowners can gather the rest, can
they anticipate that the road will be taken into the system. Mr. Lindstrom said he could not
take a stand until after the vote has been done. He then asked the people who live on
Dunromin Road to raise their hands. There was no one else at the hearing who wished to speak
about Dunromin Road.
Mr. Fisher said the Board would hear the comments about Peyton Drive at this time.
There was no one present who wished to speak about Peyton Drive, so Mr. Fisher closed-the
public hearing and put the matter before the Board for discussion.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the Board adopt a resolution of intent to share the cost of
the homeowners for getting their roads into the state system. He believes it is reasonable
for the County to split the cost with the homeowners. He thinks that a time limit should be
placed because the cost of road construction will change if something is not done fairly
soon. He asked Mr. Armm to give the Board guidance for that time period. He also believes
the staff should give the Board some guidance on the mechanism for putting up the 50 percent.
He does not think the County wants to get started until it knows that the rest of the funds
are available. On those roads where rights-of-way are an issue, he thinks the staff needs to
get specific drawings, etc., to take to the affected property owners. He wants the
resolution to include that if 100 percent of the landowners do not agree to pay half of the
costs, the County will undertake the assessment mechanism with respect to 100 percent of the
property owners. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Armm to suggest the time limit that should be
allowed. Mr. Armm responded that this year the costs did not go up very much because the oil
base Products were just about the same as last year. He said that next spring, the prices
will probably be higher on pipe and concrete products that might be needed, and on actual
labor for the regrading of ditches and the seeding. He said that almost all of the roads
listed will need surface treatment and patching. He hopes that, as far as time is concerned,
the work can be set for late spring, because he would hate to see it go beyond next year.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if it would be reasonable for the County to put up half of the costs
of the road construction, assuming the estimates are right, until April 1, 1987. Mr. Payne
suggested that this 50 percent payment by the County be made to the extent of the estimate in
some sort of cash contribution. In addition, there would need to be a commitment by the
private owners to be responsible for 50 percent of any additional costs.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks what Mr. Payne suggested is ideal, but he can see that it
could be a real problem. He thinks that the Board has to decide that if the costs increase
more than a certain percentage then no one is obligated unless everybody decides to come up
with the additional money. He thinks it would be difficult for the homeowners to sell an
September 3, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
unknown quantity to their neighbors. Mr. Armm stated that, according to how prices have been
going up the last few years, he thinks that a 10 percent increase over the estimates is a
good, fair and conservative figure.
Mr. Lindstrom said that in using Mr. Armm's current, estimates, what the County and the
private owners have to consider is the funding of that estimate plus 10 percent. If the
price goes beyond that, it will have to be considered again. Mr. Payne said that it concern~
him that the actual bid figures may not be the same as the estimates. He has seen cases
where they are quite radically different.
Mr. Lindstrom said that some protection has to be put in the resolution so that every-
body has an idea as to the extent they are involved. Mr. Payne said he is concerned about
having possibilities written into a resolution, because a resolution implies that something
is going to happen. He recognizes what Mr. Lindstrom is saying, but he wonders if the
resolution might be better stated as a policy deCision and a statement of the sense of the
Board rather than a commitment.
Mrs. Cooke stated that she thought the whole thing could be simplified by saying that
the County would agree to pay half and the property owners would agree to pay half of
whatever the bid is at that particular time, knowing that the longer you wait, the more the
bid will probably be. If it goes over an amount that the property owners are not willing or
cannot afford to pay, then it doesn't happen.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested asking the County Attorney to draft a resolution along the line~
of this discussion and bring it back to the Board at its next meeting. Mr. Bowie mentioned
that the four roads being discussed at this public hearing got into Priority Number One, but
there is a Priority Number Two and a Priority Number Three. If the estimates on the roads
that are in Priority Number One are correct, it will be a total amount of $71,200, of which
the County would pay $35,600. When it is all put together, however, it is $279,000. He
doesn't feel that the Board can state that it will do Priority Number One unless it fully
intends to do Priority Two and Priority Three, if the people on those roads also raise the
money. He pointed out that there is no difference except that somebody assigned a priority.
Mrs. Cooke stated that she thinks the Highway Department's method of handling roads such as
this is a simplified formula that most people can understand. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board
has to decide whether to move forward with these four roads tonight or not. The people at
this hearing understand what is happening even if the Board does not have specific language
for a resolution at this time. He asked Mr. Agnor where he recommended the funding for these
four road projects should come from, if the homeowners take the Board up on its offer. Mr.
Agnor answered that highway projects are considered capital improvements and the Capital
Improvement Pprogram will be updated the spring. If the Board assumes that the time to get
the money from the property owners is going to be early April, he thinks the Capital
Improvement Program budget could absorb the other half of the cost for these first four
roads. However, in consideration of the number that Mr. Bowie is speaking of, the whole
situation would have to be looked at again from a timing and a prioritization standpoint as
to whether funds for highway needs can be met as the property owners are raising their share,
or whether it would have to be included in the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program.
Mr. Lindstrom mentioned that there is a considerable difference in the desire of the
property owners on some of these other projects. If the Board states its willingness to fund
half of Priority One in this fiscal year, up to $75,000, he feels that would be proper
action. That would give some room for inflation. After the end of the fiscal year, the
Board would have to consider what, if anything, would be done about the Priority Two and
Priority Three roads. His understanding of the Engineer's report is that it defines the
roads that have any characteristics similar to the ones the Board is looking at today. So,
there is not an unlimited number of these roads.
Mr. Way agreed that the Board should get a budget figure into the resolution. He asked
if this will affect the money that the County gets from the Highway Department for secondary
improvements, and Mr. Agnor answered, "no." Mr. Way continued that this will open up the
possibility, once this policy is set, for anybody in the County to come in to try to get
prioritized who is willing to pay for 50 percent of a road. If the Board does not have a
clear way to determining what those priorities are, he sees all kinds of problems.
Mr. Lindstrom mentioned that the report that was issued by the County Engineering
Deparetment in March, 1986 (see minutes of April 9, 1986) says that there are approximately
20 roads in the County originally intended to be public roads but never accepted into the
state system. He said that this report deals with 14 of those roads. He then read from the
report listing the criteria that the roads have to meet. According to this report, Mr.
Lindstrom said there is a definition that limits it to the 14 roads that are covered by this
report. He does not feel quite so exposed to any and everybody who has a road that may want
to get a road into the State System regardless of its status.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adopt a resolution. Mr. Fisher
stated that when there is a time period set, people tend to relax until the deadlines show
up. The problem will be trying to get everybody ready to go to bid when the spring
construction season starts before all the contractors get too busy to do the work. He thinks
the time that has been set aside in that motion is appropriate because the County does work
with fiscal years, but he just wanted to tell the property owners and staff that they should
not put off doing any of this. It will take a lot of things falling into place between now
and February or March, and he thinks that would be a good time to go to bids.
Mr. Lindstrom thinks there are two aspects of ~this situation. The money may be called
for at any time during this fiscal year, but it seems to him that there should be deadlines
set that are considerably this side of the end of the fiscal year because of the mechanics of
getting everything done. He went back to his original suggestion of April 1 because the
commitments need to be made by the property owners and the rights-of-way dedicated by that
September 3, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
time in order to get bids done and the construction underway at the beginning of the con-
struction season. He wanted this deadline included in his motion, and Mrs. Cooke, as the
seconder of the motion, agreed.
(The resolution reads as follows:)
BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, intends to appropriate up to half of $75,000.00
($37,500.00) to bring North Berkshire Road, Peyton Drive, Milton Drive,
and Dunromin Road up to the standards of the Virginia Department of High-
ways and Transportation for inclusion in the Secondary System of Highways.
BE IT RESOLVED that this appropriation is tendered only through
June 30, 1987, and will be approved by the Board of Supervisors at such
time as all the necessary rights-of-way have been dedicated by the property
owners whose land front the aforementioned roads, and the other half of the
funds have been raised by the property owners.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a deadline of April 1, 1987, is hereby set
for commitments of funds and dedication of rights-of-way by the property
owners in order for road improvement bids to be taken so construction can
begin in a timely fashion.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to have the resolution sent to all the people to whom ·
the notice of the public hearing was sent. There was no further discussion. Roll was called
and the motion was carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 6. Jan Spink/Irving Jones. To allow commercial stables on 50.9 acres
zoned RA located on Route 676 one-half mile west of Route 660 (deferred from August 20,
1986).
Mr. Horne reviewed the staff report which is set out in full in the minutes of
August 20, 1986. This item was deferred from August 20, 1986 because.the applicant was not
present at the meeting. He said it is the staff's opinion that some reasonable limit on
membership could adequately address the traffic concerns. The staff's opinion is that this
is an agriculturally-related use, and it is consistent with the rural areas district and
should be encouraged. There would be some substantial benefit of this particular program in
the County, and the staff recommends approval subject to the six conditions listed in the
staff report. The Planning Commission, at its August 5, 1986 meeting, unanimously
recommended approval of this petition to the Board with a slight change in Condition Number
One. There was considerable discussion at the Commission meeting as to what was the most
appropriate way to try to put some limit on the level of traffic that could be generated.
The Commission changed Condition One to "usage limited to not more than ten clients per day.
This is acceptable to the staff. All of the other conditions are the same as recommended by
the staff. Mr. Horne pointed out the location of the property on the map.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Horne his definition of a horse show in terms of how many people
will attend. Mr. Horne responded that the staff does not have a definition in terms of
limitation of usage of what a horse show would be. In this case, the staff intended "horse
show" to mean some type of show or demonstration open to the general public as opposed to
something that is in conjunction with the lessons for the clients. There is no limitation as
to the size of the horse show that could be conducted on this property, but the staff does
not think that the property will lend itself to a very large event.
Mr. Fisher said that not having more than ten clients per day should take care of the
road congestion problem, and he thinks that is reasonable, but a good horse show can generate
a lot of people and traffic. He wondered if it was the intent to have one event whereby the
clients themselves came in and had a show for families, etc., or whether this was intended tc
be a full public horse show. Mr. Horne answered that the staff does not anticipate a full
public horse show in the sense that the shows are conducted on some other properties in the
County. The riding lessons would be open to the general public, so he does no~ think it is
reasonable to assume that a horse show would only be for the clients. He thinks the horse
show could be somewhat larger than a small-scale, riding lesson type situation.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what is permitted by right in the way of shows. Mr. Horne replied
that this has not been defined. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not believe that a commercial
stable would be having as a matter of right a horse show where hundreds of people were
coming. He does not envision this as something that could be done. Mr. Horne said he is not
aware if the applicant actually intends to conduct a horse show in a traditional sense. He
is not sure if this is a condition where the applicant would be willing to forego the option
of a horse show or have a strict limitation. He does not believe, in looking at the
property, that the applicant would intend to have a very large horse show. The land does not
have the facilities or the layout. But, without asking the applicant, Mr. Horne is not sure
if they are interested in doing any horse shows.
At this point, Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing. Ms. Spink, the applicant, stated
that it Wa~ not in her mind when she bought this property to run large horse shows. She said
the primary purpose is to have riding for the disabled. She included able-bOdied people in
her request because her volunteers and therapists may take riding lessons so they can be
better helpers. She said it would not be a barracks type of an operation. Ms. Spink
said that normally at the end of sessions, there is a little horse show for the kids and
their parents. It is possible that she could have a fund-raising type horse show to bring in
revenue for the program, but she does not plan on doing this. She does not have a big ring.
If she were going to have a fund-raising horse show, she would probably go somewhere else
232
September 3, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
with an indoor facility and a big operation. She said she could have one horse show a year,
but she thinks it will be small. Mr. Fisher asked Ms. Spink what she suggested as a
reasonable limitation for the number of people and horses for a horse show on this property.
Ms. Spink was unsure how to answer Mr. Fisher's question because specifically, a riding for
the disabled show is much smaller because the amount of spectators coming to see it would be
people who are interested in disabled sports. This is not the same as the major horse
population that comes to the Foxfield Races. Mr. Lindstrom asked if, in Ms...Spink's
experience, a horse show would be limited to her own clients as the riders. Ms. Spink
replied that this is true.
Mrs. Cooke asked how many students Ms. Spink has per session. Ms. Spink said that she
usually works one on one. Because of the individualization and the intensity of the work,
she can only handle ten people per day. Mr. Fisher asked Ms. Spink how many students she
would have over a six month period. Ms. Spink answered that in the past, she ran big
programs, but only had 30 or 40 students each semester. In this setup, the program has not
been formed.
Mrs. Cooke then asked, considering Ms. Spink's facility, how many people she could
accommodate if she had a horse show just for her students. Ms. Spink replied that 20 people
performing at a disabled horse show would be typical and 70 would be a very big show. Mr.
Fisher asked if 50 entrants would be a reasonable compromise. Ms. Spink answered that her
problem is that she has been working on a national level, and she has not tried to do any-
thing locally, yet. She is unsure as to what will happen with her program here. Mr. Fisher
pointed out that this property is~ relatively small, and it is on a road that has already been
defined as nontolerable. The Board is trying to figure out a way to accommodate what Ms.
Spink wants to do and not create other problems. The Board also does not want the next owner
to inherit this permit and assume that he can have a large show. Ms. Spink agreed that 50
entrants is fine with her, but for the average, non-disabled commercial horse person, 50
would be small.
Since the Board members did not have any more questions for Ms. Spink, and no one else
wished to speak about this application, Mr. Fisher closed the public hearing.
Mr. Lindstrom mentioned that he is familiar with this road and the area. He thinks it
is an appropriate use for the property. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve this
special permit with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and the additional
condition: "No more than fifty (50) entrants participating in a horse show or other such
event open to the general public." Mr. Way seconded the motion.
Mr. Bowie said he would support the application as long as the program is limited to ten
students per day. Mr. Lindstrom said that the sight distance is not bad at all. The road
is narrow and he expects that most of the clients would be coming from the Free Union Road.
The only problem he sees, is that the Free Union Road and Route 676 have an unpleasant
intersection.
Mrs. Cooke will support this motion because she believes that Mr. Lindstrom has looked
into this carefully, it is in his district, and he is comfortable with it. She does, how-
ever, have questions about allowing horse shows with 50 entrants. She wonders how many
support vehicles it takes to support a horse show and if the road is tolerable enough for
that and is there adequate parking.
There was no further discussion.
following recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion was carried with the
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are as follows:)
e
5.
6.
7.
Usage limited to not more than ten (10) clients per day;
Not more than one (1) horse show or other such event per year
open to the general public;
Compliance with 5.1.3 of the zoning Ordinance:
5.1.3 Commercial Stable
a. Riding rings and other riding surfaces shall be covered
and maintained with a material such as pine bark to minimize
dust and erosion;
b. Fencing and other methods of animal confinement shall be
maintained at all times;
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a
private street commercial entrance;
Staff approval of off-street parking;
Any grading plan to be reviewed by Watershed Management Official
in addition to review by County Engineer;
No more than fifty (50) entrants participating in a horse show or
other such event open to the general public.
Agenda Item No. 7. CPA-86-2. Designate New Roadway Network. Amend the Albemarle
County Comprehensive Plan to describe a roadway network to be constructed between Rio Road
and the Hilton Hotel site between the SPCA Road and Route 29 North; and amend the Chapter 11
Land Use Plan Page 150 to describe the roadways in the recommendations for Neighborhood One
(deferred from July 16, 1986).
Mr. Horne said that in lieu of going back through the Staff's original report and the
memorandum dated July 8, 1986, giving the Planning Commission's action on this amendment, ~e
would point out the area on the map (both reports are part of the minutes of July 16 19865.
He said the Planning Commission reviewed this plan at its June 24, 1986 meeting, and by a
September 3, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
233
vote of four to two, did not recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors. The Commission
was concerned about a number of issues which are addressed in the memorandum just mentioned.
Mr. Horne showed an aerial photo and an illustration of what commercial zoning exists in the
area and the relationship of this proposed alignment to the commercial zoning. The basic
intent that the staff wanted to maintain when it was looking with the consultant at this
alignment was to keep it in a location that would be useful to those properties already zoned
commercial. Lt is hoped that, if this location is appropriate, that portions of the roadway
would be constructed as part of the development of these sites and that its major function
would be to provide an alternate access to the commercial sites. There is relatively high
density residential zoning and a combination of R-15 and R-6 zoning in that area, and this
would provide access to these areas also. However, the primary purpose is to drain some of
the service and customer traffic that would be going to these large-scale commercial areas
back onto an alternate roadway instead of forcing it onto Route 29. At the last meeting, the
staff was requested to look at the feasibility of a route that would have the roadway inter-
sect at the SPCA road or Woodburn Road instead of intersecting at Berkmar Drive. The Engi-
neering staff and Mr. Horne looked at various alternate routes and Mr. Horne showed the Board
illustrations of these. There are various pros and cons to all of these alternatives. Mr.
Horne discussed briefly the different alignments and the grades and structures relating to
them. He said the alignments could be adjusted slightly, and all three alternatives would
have some additional costs due to additional linear feet that would have to be constructed.
Those that would take structures would also have the cost of those structures, Mr. Horne
pointed out that Plans A, B, and C severely impact a mobile home park. He then told the
Board about a fourth alignment, Alignment D, that avoids all structures and gets back to the
SPCA road. He described this alignment to the Board. He said the cost of Alignment D is
very similar to the original proposal with the additional cost being in an additional connec-
tion roadway, but it would not be terribly significant. Mr. Horne explained that the Plan-
ning Commission did not look at these different plans. The Commission's recommendation is on
the original alignment.
Mr. Fisher suggested talking about the original alignment and asked if this road is
feasible with the kinds of slopes that are in the area or will a lot of grading have to be
done so that structures will not be threatened, etc. Mr. Horne explained that the Engineer
has run grades, projected alignments and fills. He pointed out one of the major areas of
fill, and said this fill would probably be from 20 to 25 feet and would require some
regrading of a hill. The staff has looked at this situation and thinks it is feasible. He
wants the Board to realize that the staff has been talking to the developer of this property
for a number of months, and he intends to build a road similar to this for his own purposes
whether it is part of the County's roadway or not. The staff does not think, given the value
of this property and the amount of grading that would have to be done to use it for its
intended zoning, that the grading is excessive. It is a lot of grading, but the property is
extremely valuable. The staff has looked at this alignment, and even though it is an
expensive road to build, in the staff's opinion, it is economically viable to build.
Mr. Lindstrom wondered how those properties would develop in the absence Of a road being
voluntarily built. He also wondered how much of a reduction in traffic there will actually
be on Route 29. Mr. Horne said a site plan had just been approved for Colonial Pontiac, and
he pointed this out on the map. He said Colonial Pontiac has taken a cul-de-sac road roughly
in the same location as the existing road, and has put it in this alignment because the staff
has been discussing its alignment plans with them. The Pontiac Company likes the County's
alignment plan because there is no crossover on Route 29 at their entrance, and there will
not be one allowed. This could cause a problem, especially for a large car carrier which
would probably have to go further up Route 29 near the Hilton, where there is a crossover.
He said the staff feels that the large-scale retail business that will be located on one of
these properties will generate a high volume of traffic. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the retail
outlet would be able to access onto Route 29 without the roadway. Mr. Horne answered, "yes,"
but he said the business would have a problem with people coming from the south trying to get
there, because those people would have to make a U-turn. The people with whom the staff has
discussed this, consider this a real liability. Mr. Fisher explained that the construction
of the road will not prevent people from having to make U-turns. It just gives them an
alternative.
At this point, Mr. Horne pointed out individual businesses and pieces of property to the
Board and explained whether or not they have access to Route 29. He said some of these
properties will not develop unless access can be found. Mr. Horne said that the Board
also questioned whether there are other roadways shown in the Comprehensive Plan that are
in a similar situation if they are ever to be constructed. He pointed out these roads on the
map and said that one is the roadway that has been discussed in conjunction with the Mill
Creek planned unit development south of town. This is a concept of a connector roadway
between Avon Street and Fifth Street Extended and would involve a portion of that road after
it leaves Mill Creek and crosses over Biscuit Run and goes through Oak Hill Subdivision. He
believes the roadways that the Board asked him to look at would be ones that the County would
have to fund if they are to be built on a timely basis. Greenbrier Drive Extended, betWeen
Whitewood Road and Hydraulic Road, across the back of the property owned by the School Board
on Whitewood Road, behind Minor Hill Apartments, is another roadway in this category; and
another is the northern extension of the Meadow Creek Parkway (on the Hollymead side of the
South Fork Rivanna River).
Mr. Fisher commented that because these properties do not have good access to Route 29,
the first alignment that Mr. Horne discussed will make the properties a lot more valuable.
He asked if Mr. Horne is talking about the County or the State putting funds into building
this road. Mr. Horne replied that, as the original staff report stated, in his opinion at
some point in the future, if the Board wants to see certain portions of this road built on a
timely basis, it is more probable than not that the Board will have to find a funding mecha-
nism.
Mr. Fisher asked if the Board could set up an assessment system for all of the
properties. Mr. Horne answered that he did not believe the Board could legally do that, for
roadways. Mr. Fisher stated that maybe the assessment idea needs to be considered, because
September 3, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
he does not know if the citizens in the rest of the County will like the idea of paying to
develop commercial and high-density residential property through road building. He believes
this will be a serious political problem. Mr. Horne replied that, in the staff's opinion,
high traffic generation and retail commercial zoning will take place whether the road is
there or not. It may not apply to all the parcels, but it does apply to the majority of the
parcels in the majority of the sections where there will be a lot of traffic generated.
There are some parcels of land that would be very difficult to develop without this roadway.
Mr. Fisher stated that there is also the question of whether anybody will build any part
of it if it does not go anywhere. Mr. Horne responded that he thinks about 40 percent of the
roadway has a strong possibility of being built. He pointed out the properties involved, and
said it is very valuable property, but would be even more valuable with the roadway. Mr.
Fisher said that it would be fine if some kind of cooperative venture between the County
and the property owners could be worked out, and the property owners could build it for their
own advantage. It worries him, after hearing Mr. Horne's statements about wanting the public
at large to build these roads, that Mr. Horne is expecting the Board to appropriate funds for
building this road. He thinks part of this whole process includes that assumption. Mr.
Horne said he only wanted the Board to be aware that this road, along with a number of other
roads that are already shown in the Comprehensive Plan, in the staff's opinion, are not going
to get built unless there is some public participation in the cost.
Mr. Bowie commented that the Board is not in any way saying that it will pay for it, but
the Board is just authorizing the road to be there. He has heard several people say that
they will proffer to build portions of it. Mr. Horne agreed with Mr. Bowie, and said that by
amending the Comprehensive Plan, the Board is not obligating itself to building anything. He
only wanted the Board to be aware, that without the County's participation, portions of the
road may not be built. He realizes that this is a policy decision. Mr. Way asked if he is
correct in assuming that at the present time there are no plans to increase the size of Rio
Road as it passes by the end of this alignment. Mr. Horne said, "no." But, he said as part
of the considerations on redoing Route 29, one of the recommendations may be to rebuild Rio
to Berkmar as part of that project. This would be an independent recommendation by the
Highway Department. In Mr. Horne's opinion, if this interchange is built, upgrading Rio Road
will be one of the portions of that project.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Payne to what extent the developers can be required during the
site plan review process to construct any portion of this road to alternate standards, or
dedicate right-if-way. Mr. Payne said that not only can the Board not require it, but it
cannot be allowed, unless the road is substantially in accordance with the COmprehensive
Plan. The easiest way to do that is if the road is shown in'the Plan. He thinks that Mr.
Horne is saying that if the developers want to come in and put in a public road there, there
is some question in his mind if it would be proper to allow them to do so, unless it is shown
in the Plan. He also said that he cannot give the Board a categorical answer to what can be
done to make the developer put a portion of the road in if he doesn't volunteer it, because
it depends so intimately on the facts of the development. The County's ordinances speak to
this in various ways depending on the facts of an individual development. He said that there
is a requirement both in the Subdivision and Site Plan Ordinances that an appropriate
connection be made to adjacent property to allow internal circulation. The Character of that
connection would obviously be dependent on the character of the development. To the extent
that the County is involved in a subdivision, one of the issues is that if a road is to be
put in which could be necessitated by the development itself, the County's Subdivision
Ordinance prohibits the installation of a private road where the Comprehensive Plan calls for
a public road. In an instance like that, it might be that if a developer needed a road for
his own purposes in a subdivision, and because this alignment is included in the Plan, it
would not be lawful for the Planning Commission to allow a private road. Then, it would
certainly be appropriate to require a public road, and at some stage it would have to be
built to the ultimate standard. The one guiding principle that he thinks is needed when the
Board is wondering what the developer can be required to do, is that the developer will have
to satisfy the need that is generated by his development.
Mr. Fisher then commented that no single development will likely generate the need for a
four lane road. Then, the Board is back at the same problem, because the Highway Department
will not take it into the system because it doesn't meet the ultimate design standards for
the total traffic. Mr. Payne believes that what Mr. Horne is telling the Board is that if a
couple of developers say they will each put in an 800 foot stretch of road, but there is an
area in the middle between these two 800 foot stretches, if the County wants to make that
connection, it will have to pay for it. Mr. Fisher Stated that there may be a way to assess
the property that will be benefitted by the road. Mr. Fisher asked if anyone at the meeting
wanted to comment on the recommendations received from the staff and Planning Commission on
this proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Since no one wished to speak Mr. Fisher
put the matter before the BOard. '
Mr. Way asked how many lanes the road would have, and Mr. Horne replied that it is
planned for three lanes. Mr. Way said the Board does not know what it will ultimately cost,
because Mr. Horne cannot say at this time. His feeling is that the road will help in terms
of getting traffic off of Route 29. He thinks it is a reasonable thing to be done, and he
supports the concept. Mrs. Cooke agreed with Mr. Way. She can see the value in having that
road there for all the reasons stated. If the developers can help, it becomes very
attractive. The Board is going to have to do something to help that section, because it has
a big traffic problem. She supports this concept as presented to the Board.
Mr. Bowie offered motion to approve CPA-86-2, the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion.
Mr. Fisher said he was not present at the meeting when this amendment was discussed
before, and he has some questions. It is not absolutely clear that the construction of this
road will reduce overall traffic in that area because it may allow development of properties
that would not, otherwise, develop. It may actually generate more total traffic in an area
than there might otherwise be. However, he thinks that those parcels are going to be
September 3, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
235
developed, and he is inclined to support the main, original route. This makes more sense,
but he is in no way assuming that the County will commit any tax funds to building that road.
He does not want landowners, staff, or anyone else to assume that this will happen. He
believes that the Board will have to work on the goal of trying to get the road built by the
people who will benefit the most. That should be the focus of all of the Board's and staff's
attention. He does not want the taxpayers in the County to think that the Board is commit-
ting itself, by this action, to raising their real estate taxes to build this road so that
commercial development can occur more easily.
Mr. Bowie repeated that he feels that there is no attempt or implication anywhere in
this presentation that the County would pay for the roadway. He feels that this plan
provides a way whereby the developer has a place to build a road that is approved, if he so
chooses. He would like to include in his motion, if it is agreeable with the seconder, that
he was referring to the blue or original route as opposed to Alignments A, B, C or D. Mrs.
Cooke, seconder of the motion, said that this was also her understanding. She said that she
believes that these pieces of property are going to be developed, and there is going to be
some kind of road network there. She thinks it is to the Board's advantage to have a planned
and orderly kind of plan for this road to develop, rather than piecemeal plans. She thinks
this would just add to the confusion of movement in that area. There was no further
discussion. Roll was called and the motion was carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
(Note: The approved amendment is as follows:)
To amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, Map 9, Urban Area
Land Use Plan 1982-2002, to show the locations of the proposed roadway
network as shown on the attached map.
To amend Chapter 11, Land Use Plan, page 150 by adding the following
under "Recommendations - Transportation improvements shall include:"
A north-south urban collector frOm Rio Road at Berkmar Drive to Hilton
Drive and two minor east-west connectors from this proposed roadway to
Route 29 North at the Woodbrook crossover and a relocated crossover for
relocated Carrsbrook Drive.
(Note: At 9:36 P.M., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 9:43 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 8. Keswick Agricultural and Forestal District. Establishment of the
Keswick Agricultural and Forestal District pursuant to Section 15.1-1511B.5 of the Code of
Virginia. The proposed district consists of 4,622.68 acres located on the east and west
sides of Route 22 near Keswick, and is further described as Tax Map 63, Parcels 24, 39, 43;
Tax Map 64, Parcels 5, 7, 7A, 8, 8A, 9, 10A, 10B, 10C, 10D, 13, 13A; Tax Map 79, Parcels 46,
46A; Tax Map 80, Parcels 1, 2A, 3Al, 3A2, 3G, 3I, 4, 5, 61D, 88, 164, 169, 169A, 174, 176,
182, 182A, 183, 183A, 190, 192, 194; Tax Map 81, Parcel 1. Rivanna District. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on August 20 and August 27, 1986.)
Agenda Item No. 9. Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District. Establishment of the
Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District, pursuant to Section 15.1-1511B.5 of the Code of
Virginia. The proposed district consists of 1,586.62 acres located on the east and west
sides of Route 231 between Cismont and Cash Corner. Part of the district extends east to
Cobham on Route 22. The district is further described as Tax Map 65~ Parcels 7, 7A, 8, 84A,
86~ 89, 90, 91, 9lA, 92, 93, 94, 100, 121, 12lA; Tax Map 66, Parcels 2, 3C, 32, 32D. Rivanna
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 20 and august 27, 1986.)
Mr. Horne gave a joint staff report on these requests as follows:
"Summary and Recommendation: The Commission received the report of the
Advisory Committee on July 15. Staff agrees with the Advisory Committee
that both districts should be approved as submitted and concurs with the
Committee's other recommendations. The applicants should be commended for
making this commitment to agriculture and forestry.
The two districts may not be combined as was previously discussed, since the
eastern part of the Kinloch District is not within one mile of the Keswick
'District.
These proposals are the fifth and sixth applications for A/FDistricts in
Albemarle County. Others already approved are:
Totier
Hatton
Eastham
Blue Run
6,138.01 acres
2,873.67 acres
764.75 acres
1,136.00 acres
Land Use:
Kinloch District: Of the total 1,586.62 acres, about 573 acres are enrolled
in the agricultural land use taxation program, and 283 acres in the forestal
land use taxation program. Four of the nineteen parcels in the district
(about 703 acres) are currently not enrolled in the land use program. Agri-
cultural and forestal uses in the proposed district include hay and other
crops, cattle, horses and forestry.
238
September 3, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
Keswick District: Of the total 4,609.69 acres, about 1728 acres are
enrolled in the agricultural land use taxation program, and 2423 acres in
the forestal land use taxation program. Five of the thirty-eight parcels in
the district (about 353 acres) are currently not enrolled in the land use
program. Agricultural and forestal uses in the proposed district include
hay and other crops, cattle, horses and forestry.
Existing Development and Zoning: There are very few small lots on the west
side of Routes 22/231. There are concentrations of small lots on the east
side in the areas of Keswick, Cismont and Cash Corner. The entire area
north of Interstate 64 along Routes 22./231 is zoned Rural Areas. The
proposed districts are in compliance with the "Statement of Intent" for the
Rural Areas District.
Comprehensive Plan: The proposed districts are part of Rural Area II. The
nearest growth area is the urban area, a distance of about six and one-half
miles from the proposed Keswick District. The proposed districts are
consistent with Goals 1 and 2 of the Plan, regarding preservation of natural
resources and important farmlands and forestal areas.
Effects of the District: The general effects of an A/F District are summa-
rized in the attachment prepared by the Piedmont Environmental Council. The
specific effects of the two districts are:
Conservation of the County's environmental resources, including
forested areas, areas of scenic beauty and open space and wildlife.
e
Support for the agricultural and forestal land uses in the area.
Adjacent property owners may be encouraged to continue agricultural
uses if they do not anticipate development of adjacent lands.
Future land use decisions must recognize Keswick and Kinloch Districts.
The districts would have no effect on development by right but could
have an effect on proposed rezonings or uses by special use permit."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 19, 1986, recommended
approval of the Kinloch Agricultural Forestal District as advertised, and recommended
approval of the Keswick Agricultural Forestal District, deleting Parcels 3A2 and 5 on Tax Map
80 as requested by the owner. Since that meeting, a letter has been received from the owner
of Castalia Farm, Tax Map 65, Parcel 13, asking that this parcel be included in the
Agricultural Forestal District. The Planning Staff recommends that the parcel be included as
a logical addition to the proposed district. The Advisory Committee had recommended that
other adjacent parcels be permitted to join the district up until this meeting tonight. With
the addition of Parcel 13, the acreage in the Keswick District will be 5222.23 acres.
At this time, the public hearing was opened to take comments on both the Keswick and
Kinloch applications.
Mr. ArChibald Craig was present to support the application for the Keswick District, but
said he had nothing to add to the application, but would be glad to answer any questions that
the Board might have.
With no one else rising to speak, the public hearings were closed.
Mr. Bowie stated that he believes the way to preserve land is for the owners to volun-
tarily place it in some kind of agricultural or forestal district as opposed to the Board
trying to determine what should be farm land. Mr. Bowie ~then offered motion to approve the
requests. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Mr. Horne wanted to clarify that it was Mr.
Bowie's intent to include in his motion the additional parcel on Tax Map 65, Parcel 13. Mr.
Bowie said it was his intent to include that. There was no further discussion. Roll was
called and the motion was carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 10. Public hearing on an ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2.1-4
of the Albemarle County Code entitled "Agricultural and Forestal Districts" by the addition
of subsection (e) entitled "Keswick Agricultural and Forestal Distict" described above, and
subsection (f) entitled "Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District" described above.
(Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on August 20 and
August 27, 1986.)
Mr. Fisher said that this is the final step that the Board has to take to incorporate
the Kinloch and Keswick districts into the Ordinance. Mr. Horne said the actual ordinance
will need to include the new parcel which is Tax Map 65, Parcel 13. Mr. Payne stated that if
the Board adopts the Ordinance, the record should be made clear that Tax Map 65, Parcel 13 is
included.
Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing, but no one was there who indicated a desire to
speak. Mr. Fisher closed the public hearing and put the matter before the Board.
Mr. Bowie moved adoption of the ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2.1-4 of the
Albemarle County Code Entitled "Agricultural and Forestal Districts" including Tax Map 65,
Parcel 13, Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion was carried
with the following recorded vote:
September'3, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
237
· AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
(Note: The Ordinance as adopted is set out below:)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 2.1-4 OF THE ALBEMARLE
COUNTY CODE ENTITLED "AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS"
BY THE ADDITION OF SUB-SECTION (e) ENTITLED "KESWICK AGRICULTURAL
AND FORESTAL DISTRICT" AND SUB-SECTION (f) ENTITLED "KINLOCH
AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICT"
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Section 2.1-4 is hereby amended and reenacted by the addition
of sub-section (e) entitled "Keswick Agricultural and Forestal District" and
sub-section (f) entitled "Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District" to
read as follows:
Section 2.i-4. Districts described.
There are hereby established six agricultural and forestal districts
within the county as follows:
(e) The district known as the "Keswick Agricultural and Forestal
District" consists of the following described properties: Tax Map 63,
Parcels 24, 39, 43; Tax Map 64, Parcels 5, 7, 7A, 8, 8A, 9, 10A, 10B,
10C, 10D, 13, 13A; Tax Map 65, Parcel 13; Tax Map 79, Parcels 46, 46A;
Tax Map 80, Parcels 1, 2A, 3Al, 3G, 3I, 4, 61D, 88, 164, 169, 169A, 174,
176, 182, 182A, 183, 183A, 190, 192, 194; ~Tax Map 81, Parcel 1.
(f) The district known as the "Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal
District" consists of the following described properties: Tax Map 65,
Parcels 7, 7A, 8, 84A, 86, 89, 90 91, 9lA, 92, 93, 94, 100, 121, 12lA;
Tax Map 66, Parcels 2, 3C, 32, 32D.
Agenda Item No. 11. Appointments: Advisory Council on Aging, Community Services,
Emergency Medical Services, Jordan Development Corporation. Mr. Fisher stated that he and
Mrs. Cooke have met with Miss Neher and have gone over all of the vacancies and have made
recommendations for filling these vacancies.
Mr. Way thanked the committee for coming back with recommendations for the Board. Mr.
Way then offered motion to make appointments as recommended in a memorandum dated August 28
for the various agencies listed, to wit:
Advisory Council on Aging:
June 1, 1987.
Appoint Ms. Anne Hardinger for a term to expire on
Airport Commission: Appoint Mr. John C. Lowry for a term effective December 1, 1986,
through December 1, 1989.
Emergency Medical Services CoUncil:
on December 31, 1988.
Appoint Mr. Ian H. MacGregor for a term to expire
Community Services Board:
June 30, 1988.
Appoint Mrs. Kathleen M. Kennedy for a term to expire on
Jefferson Area Board on A~in~ (JABA):
on October 20, 1988.
Reappoint Mr. Mark Reisler for a term to expire
Jefferson Area United Transportation (JAUNT) Board:
for a term to expire on September 30, 1989.
Reappoint Mr. Franz G. Stillfried
Jordan Development Corporation:
expire on August 13, 1987.
Reappoint Mrs. E. A. "Shifty" Sides for a term to
Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. There was no further discussion.
the motion was carried with the following recorded vote:
Roll was called and
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: March 13, September 25, October 16, Novem-
ber 6, November 13, December 4 (Night), December 18, 1985.
Mrs. Cooke read the minutes for December 18, 1985, pages 8 through 14 and those from
December 4, 1985 (Night), pages 1 through 5. These minutes were satisfactory.
Mr. Bowie read the minutes for September 25, 1985 and discovered minor typographical
errors.
Mr. Way read the minutes for December 4, 1985 (Night), pages 19 through 26 and found
them to be satisfactory.
2:38
September 3, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Pa e~4)
Mr. Fisher read the minutes for November 13, 1985, pages 10 through 21 and discovered
minor typographical errors. Mr. Fisher pointed out that on Page 16 of the November 13, 1985
minutes, he found a motion that was seconded, but he could not find the motion, itself. He
mentioned that he wanted to commend the clerks on the job that they are doing with the
minutes.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve the minutes which ha~ been read. Mr. Way
seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion was
carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public.
Mr. Fisher asked the County Executive if he could give the Board a brief report on the
progress being made on repairs to the Circuit Courtroom in the Courthouse. Mr. Agnor report-
ed that the interior storm windows have been installed and completed, and the air handling
system has been balanced and is complete. The only other action that can be taken to cut
down on the noise is to have an acoustical treatment of the interior of the courtroom which
would include drapes and carpeting. A public address system is also being considered. Some
studies are underway, but will not be completed probably for another week. It is Mr. Agnor's
understanding that the Courtroom is now being used again, but until the acoustical engineers'
study is completed the Judge will not be totally satisfied. Mr. Agnor said that he hoped to
be able to have a brief tour of the Courthouse buildings at next week's meeting in advance of
the dedication that will be held later this month.
Mr. Fisher commented that the Judge has indicated that he does hope that all necessary
improvements to the Courtroom are completed promptly, but he has agreed that he will allow
the workmen to stop if necessary for two hours for the dedication service. The dedication
will be on Friday, September 26, 1986, and the Board is invited. He said that the Supreme
Court Chief Justices are invited, and A. E. Dick Howard will talk about the Constitution, and
the Albemarle Historical Society is involved.
Agenda Item No. 14. Executive Session. At 10:05 P.M., Mr. Way offered motion to
adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel matters. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the
motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion was carried with
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie~ Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
The Board reconvened into open session at 10:12 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn.
meeting was immediately adjourned.
With no further business to come before the Board, the