1986-03-05348
March 5, 1986 (Regular
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
March 5, 1986, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E.
Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John,
County Attorney; Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive; Mr. Ray B. Jones, Deputy
County Executive; and Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Chairman, Mr. Fisher.
Call to Order.
The meeting was called to order at 7:31 P.M., by the
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by
Mr. Way, to accept the items of information on the consent agenda, with the exception of Item
No. 4.1. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Item No. 4.1. Memorandum dated February 20, 1986 from Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of
Planning & Community Development, re: Planning Commission Action - Innisfree Village
(SP-80-79). Mr. Henley requested that this item be discussed at the end of the meeting.
Item NO. 4.2. Letter dated February 10, 1986 from Hunton & Williams, re: the Tax
Reform Act of 1985, HR 3838, which will impose significant restrictions on traditional local
government financing.
Item No. 4.3. Copy of letter dated February 18, 1986 addressed to Clarence J. and Mary
Ann Elder, and copy of letter dated February 18, 1986 addressed to Munsey S. and Jean $.
Wheby, from Mr. H. Bryan Mitchell, Department of Conservation and Historic Resources, noting
that Woodstock Hall Tavern has been placed on the Virginia Historic Landmarks Register and is
being nominated to the National Register of Historic Places.
Item No. 4.4. Copy of letter dated February 18, 1986 to Mr. Jeffrey Fish, Sovran Bank,
from ABG Financial Services, Inc., re: Monthly Bond Program Report for Arbor Crest Apart-
ments.
Item No. 4.5. Copy of "Employment and Wages in Virginia - 1st Quarter 1985" was
received from the Virginia Employment Commission.
Item No. 4.6. "Virginia Department of Alcohol Beverage Control 1985 Annual Report" was
received as information on February 24, 1986.
Item No. 4.7. "Tax Rates in Virginia's Cities, Counties, and Selected Towns: 1985",
published by the Institute of Government, University of Virginia, was received as informa-
tion.
Item No. 4.8. "County of Albemarle 1984-1985 Annual Report" was received as information
from the Personnel Department.
Item No. 4.9. Copies of Planning Commission minutes for February 11, February 18 and
February 25, 1986, were received as information.
Item No. 4.10. Summary of Building Activity in 1985 dated February, 1986, was received
from the Department of Planning and Community Development.
Item No. 4.11. Letter dated February 25, 1986 from Senator John W. Warner, re:
Conrail to Norfolk Southern:
"Knowing of your interest in the sale of Consolidated Railways (Conrail) to
the private sector, I wanted to advise you of action which the Congress
recently took relating to this issue.
As you may know, after lengthy debate, on February 4, 1986 the Senate passed
with my support, S.638, the "Conrail Sale Amendments of 1985."
Sale of
March 5_~_1986~ht Meetin_~)
It is my judgment that the federal government should not be the operating
authority for railroads and that the taxpayers, as well as shippers and
operators of other railroads throughout the nation, would benefit by a
return of Conrail to the private sector. Therefore, during final debate and
vote, I supported the sale of Conrail to Norfolk Southern as recommended by
the Secretary of Transportation. The approval of this sale must now be
considered by the House of Representatives."
Item No. 4.12. Notice of Application dated March 1, 1986, from Peacock Hill Service
Company, re: Application to initiate a charge for turning on and turning off its water
service.
Agenda Item No. 5. Presentation by County Executive re: 1986-87 County Budget.
Mr. Fisher said beginning next week, the Board of Supervisors will hold a series of work
sessions open to the public. The public hearing on the proposed 1986-87 budget is scheduled
for April 2, with adoption of the budget scheduled for April 9, 1986.
Mr. Agnor presented his budget message dated February 27, 1986:
"Forwarded herewith for your consideration is a recommended budget for FY
86-87 totalling $57,293,239, an increase over the current year's budget of
$3,599,039, or 6.7 percent. Estimated revenues will exceed recommended
appropriations by $446,508, providing a reserve for tax rate adjustments or
contingency needs arising from Federal funding cutbacks and State mandates,
both of which are uncertainties at this time. The following summarizes the
total budget:
Recommended Change
Budgeted Requested Recommended Over FY 85-86
FY 85-86 FY 86-87 FY 86-87 $ %
General Government
School Operations
School Debt Service
Capital Budget
City Revenue Sharing
Total
$15,122,481 $16,611,135 $15,798,754 676,273 4.47
33,633,282 37,115,112 36,570,810 2,937,528 8.73
2,063,258 1,961,166 1,981,166 -82,082 -3.98
1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 -0- -0-
1,875,179 1~942,509 1~942,509 67~330 3.59
$53,694,200 $58,629,922 $57,293,239 3,599,039 6.70
As summarized above, the recommended budget leaves unfunded $812,381 in
General Government requests, and $524,302 in School Division requests, a
total of $1,336,683. As you can see, Debt Service drops $82,092, and is
mostly offset by an increase in the City Revenue Sharing Agreement of
$67,330. The Capital Budget is recommended to continue at the current
funding level of $1,000,000.
Revenues to finance the recommended appropriations are estimated as follows:
Budgeted Recommended Difference
FY 85-86 FY 86-87 $ %
Revenues
General Fund:
Property Taxes
Other Local Revenues
Miscellaneous Revenues
State Revenues
Federal Revenues
Sub Total
From Carry Over Balance
Total
$23,379,400 $25,369,067 1,989,667 8.51
8,827,680 9,368,196 540,516 6.12
2,365,445 2,335,118 -30,327 -1.29
2,848,616 2,949,529 100,913 3.54
175,611 102,229 -73,382 -41.79
37,596,752 40,124,139 2,527,387 6.72
615~715 -0- -615~715 -100.00
$38,212,467 $40,124,139 1,911,672 5.00
School Fund:
State Revenues
Federal Revenues
Miscellaneous
Total
GRAND TOTAL
$12,264,174 $13,945,863 1,681,689 13.71
456,711 495,704 38,993 8.53
2,771~835 3,181,081 409,246 14.76
$15,492,720 $17,622,648 2,129,928 13.74
$53,694,200 $57,746,787 4,052,587 7.54
Local funds recommended to finance the School Operations (excluding debt)
are:
Total School Budget
Less: Debt Service
School Operations
Less: School Fund Revenues
Total Local Funds
$35,696,540 $38,551,976 2,855,436 7.99
2,063,258 1,981,166 -82~092 -3.98
$33,633,282 $36,570,810 2,937,258 8.73
15,492~720 17,622,648 2,129,928 13.74
$18,140,562 $18,948,162 807,600 4.45
Approval by the General Assembly will affect revenue estimates, but should
not be significant.
For the current year, updating of estimated expenditures and revenues
indicate the School Fund and General Fund will end this fiscal year with
carry-over balances. The School Division is requesting the use of the
School Fund carry-over money, estimated to be $153,681, to balance next
year's budget. The General Fund carry-over balance, estimated to be $1.5
million is recommended for allocation to the Capital Improvement Program and
the cash operating balance needed between annual tax collection periods.
March 5, 19.86 (ReGular NiGht MeetinG)
Attached (on file) to this memorandum are summaries of major changes in
operations and revenues. Details will be provided at your work sessions.
This financial plan is forwarded for your review with grateful acknowledge-
ment of the dedication and assistance of many board and committee members,
and staff employees who have spent countless hours in the preparation and
analysis of this document.
SUMMARY OF REVENUES
General Fund
Property tax revenues are estimated to increase $1.98 million, an 8.51
percent increase. This increase derives from a strong economy with $850,000
from Real Estate additions, an increase of 5.2 percent, and $940,000 from
Personal Property, an increase of 19.63 percent. Other Local taxes increase
$0.5 million or 6.12 percent, with sales taxes remaining level; utility
taxes providing $200,000, a 6.3 percent increase; business/professional
licenses increasing $250,000 or 17 percent; and motor vehicle licenses
rising $80,000 or 13.5 percent. State funds for the Police Department
increase $42,315 or 7.26 percent. Other categories of revenue move both
upward and downward in small changes.
The FY 85-86 budget used $615,000 in carry-over funds to balance the budget.
Use of carry-over funds in the General Fund is not recommended for balancing
the FY 86-87 budget. The total of the General Fund revenues is estimated to
be $40.1 million, an increase of $1.91 million or 5.0 percent. This $1.91
million represents 3.6 percent of the County's total current budget.
School Fund
The major increase in the School Fund is derived from State Revenues, which
are projected to increase $1.6 million or 16.1 percent. State revenues
titled Recovered Costs increase $84,120 or 3.6 percent. The use of carry-
over funds totalling $153,681 and other minor sources provide a total School
Fund increase of $1.86 million or 14.4 percent, without the General Fund
contribution for operations and debt service. The General Fund contribution
for operations is recommended to increase $807,600 or 4.45 percent, and the
funds for debt service are recommended to decrease $82,092 or 3.98 percent.
SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS
General Government
Salary adjustments are recommended at 3.5 percent to be provided all employees
on July 1 with satisfactory performance ratings during FY 85-86. Continuation
of the merit program for outstanding performance ratings is recommended,
which will provide 25 percent - 30 percent of staff with an additional five
percent raise on their anniversary date. The funding of the employee health
insurance program is recommended to continue at its current level of $688
per year per subscriber employee. County staff is participating in a
community-wide study by major employers of Alternative Health Care Delivery
Systems, and will report their findings later this year.
Other employee related programs funded in the Personnel Department budget
are an Employee Assistance Program to provide professional counseling to
employees with personal or family problems, estimated to cost $4,300, and a
Wellness Program to provide health risk assessments and medical counseling
to fifty employees as a pilot program to study its affects on health insur-
ance and attendance, estimated to cost $5,250. The same program planned for
1150 school division employees in conjunction with the State Department of
Health at a state subsidized cost to the School Division of $8,900. The
funds for the Early Retirement Program for two employees are provided
totalling $9,425 for their total periods of retirement.
Additional staff positions are recommended in Planning (1.5 positions)
Police (1 position) and Social Services (1.5 positions). Creation of a
Development Information Office is recommended without additional staff.
Other new or expanded programs requested and recommended are provided in an
attached summary (on file).
School Division
Enrollment is projected to increase by 117 students resulting in the addi-
tion of 5.8 teachers, five bus drivers, two transit aides, and one assistant
principal. Teacher salaries are proposed to increase an average of 8.2
percent by granting an across-the-board increase of $1,628. The entry level
salary would increase 11.6 percent, the top step would increase 6.7 percent.
The scale would change from $14,000 - $23,944 to $15,628 - $25,572. If the
General Assembly mandates teacher salary increases, a 10 percent increase
would have to be funded requiring an additional $234,000. This would result
in an across-the-board increase of $1,895, increasing the entry level salary
13.5 percent, the top step 7.9 percent, and creating a scale of $15,895 -
$25,830.
Administrators and Classified Personnel are proposed to receive a five
percent salary adjustment increase. Funds for a merit pool for qualified
administrators are provided. There are no funds proposed for the adoption
of a merit plan for classified employees. Health insurance is planned to be
funded at the current level, $688 per employee subscriber. Early retirement
for sixteen employees is funded at $25,265 for the first year of the retire-
ment period.
351
March 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Allotments for instructional materials includes a 10 percent increase which
has been level-funded for three years. Systematic replacement of 13 buses
and two special education lift buses is planned. Rental fee for textbooks
is planned to increase from $20 to $25 leaving the Textbook Fund with a
$25,000 deficit. Facilities Refurbishments are requested at $224,492 an
increase of $102,092 or 83.4 percent over the current year's funding. The
requested amount leaves unfunded needs estimated to be $247,800.
New or expanded programs listed for you in January are provided in an
attachment (on file). No recommendations are made on specific programs,
only on the total funding.
Conclusion/Recommendations
It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors and School Board reconcile
the difference between the 3.5 percent salary adjustment proposed for
General Government employees and the five percent salary adjustment proposed
for School Division administrators and classified employees. Surveys of
salaries conducted by the Director of Personnel indicate our salary scales
are competitive, and experience with applications for employment vacancies
supports that finding. The 3.5 percent adjustment was equated from a
Consumer Price Index factor of 3.8 percent for the calendar year ending
December, 1985. It is my understanding the five percent adjustment was
proposed to recognize that teacher salaries were increasing from 6.7 percent
to 11.6 percent versus other salaries increasing 3.5 percent. I recommend
that salary survey and employment application statistics be followed, and
that improvement in career teacher salary scales, which has been funded for
several years, should continue without attempting to relate the adjustments
to other career employee salary scales.
The costs to increase General Government employees from 3.5 percent to five
percent is estimated to be $105,000. The costs of School Division employee
adjustments from a 3.5 percent to a five percent level is estimated to be
$102,000. If the General Assembly mandates a 10 percent average teacher
salary increase, the $102,000 could be redirected to funding, in part, the
$234,000 additional costs that the mandate would create. Not meeting the
mandate could reduce State revenues in FY 87-88 by approximately $0.5
million.
Increased uncertainty and confusion on the effects of Federal funding cuts,
the usual conflicting reports on ultimate approval of the State budget next
month, and the need to consider tax rate adjustments caused me to recommend
a contingency revenue reserve this year in an amount estimated to be suffi-
cient to meet most variables. If a tax rate decrease adjustment is con-
sidered, a $.01 rate change will reduce Real Estate revenues by $193,577,
and Personal Property/Machinery and Tools revenues by $14,356.
Agenda Item No. 6. To receive comments from citizens regarding funding programs and
services for the 1986-87 County budget.
Mr. Fisher opened the floor to public comments.
Ms. Rellen Perry, Chairman, Albemarle Housing Coalition, emphasized the need to include
a new position entitled "Housing Coordinator" in the 1986-87 budget. Ms. Perry referenced a
letter (on file) she mailed to the Board dated February 26, 1986 concerning this need.
Ms. Peggy Kidd, Community Resource Specialist, Monticello Area Community Action Agency
(MACAA), said one of the most pressing needs she finds when dealing with her clientele in
Albemarle County is the need for affordable, decent housing. She is presently working with a
clientele of 54. In the past two weeks she has had 15 families come into the office with
housing problems. If the Board can do anything to help solve this problem, then please do
so. Mr. Lindstrom asked what are the characteristics of her clientele in need of housing.
Ms. Kidd said the clientele is a mixture of elderly, single parents, husband-wife working
families and aid to dependent children (ADC) recipients. Mr. Lindstrom asked what specifi-
cally the County should do that it is presently not doing to heip these people. Ms. Kidd
said the concept of a coordinator who works strictly helping to solve the housing problems in
Albemarle County would be a help. The Moderate Rehabilitation Program is a tremendous help,
but will not solve the program. She does not know how to solve the problem, but is open to
any suggestions and is willing to work with anyone.
Ms. Susan Kennedy, a member of the Junior League of Charlottesville, representing the
League on the Housing Coalition, next addressed the Board. The Junior League of Charlottes-
ville is committed to insuring that women, their families and children, are afforded oppor-
tunities and services essential for their physical, economic, intellectual, emotional and
social growth. Safe and adequate housing is essential for the well-being of everyone. The
League strongly urges the Board to recognize the problem of inadequate housing by designating
a position of Housing Coordinator to identify and evaluate the problem, and develop and
orchestrate a solution.
Ms. Sue Lewis, President of the Charlottesville-Albemarle League of Women Voters, said
the League has long been interested in housing concerns in both the City and County. The
League is a long time member of the Housing Coalition and supports the Coalition recommenda-
tions and would support the position of a Housing Coordinator.
Mr. Franz Stillfried, representing the Independence Resource Center, next addressed the
Board. He stated that persons with disabilities need housing, not only for shelter, but to
be able to participate in society and maintain a job. The Independence Resource Center
encourages the Board to support a position of Housing Coordinator and aid in developing
352
March 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Paqe 5)
incentives that would encourage developers to build or renovate conveniences that are acces-
sible to persons with disabilities, the vision impaired, and the hearing impaired. Mr.
Stillfried said he would be glad to work with anybody with those interests.
Mr. Jim Heilman, a representative on the Jefferson Area Board for the Aging (JABA), said
JABA has been a long time participant and supporter of the programs and objectives of the
Albemarle Housing Coalition. In 1980 statistics indicated that 7.8 percent of elderly
households in Virginia lacked plumbing, in Albemarle County that figure was 13 percent; 5.7
percent of elderly households in Virginia lacked a kitchen, in Albemarle County that figure
was 9.5 percent; and 20 percent of elderly households in Virginia lacked central heating, in
Albemarle County that figure was 40 percent. Nearly every indicator of substandard housing
in the 1980 census found that Albemarle County's elderly citizens were significantly worse
off than those in the state as a whole. For that reason he is present to echo the sentiments
of the Housing Coalition of the need to provide for one person on the County staff whose
primary responsibility is coordinating the provision of safe and sanitary housing for all of
the citizens of Albemarle County.
Mr. Taylor Beard, a member of the Charlottesville Housing Improvement Foundation, said
the Foundation strongly supports a Housing Coordinator. A former member of the Foundation's
board served as a coordinator in Albemarle approximately 15 years ago. That position was
eliminated and to establish it again within the County would be an important and useful
function.
Regarding the issue of adult day care, Dr. Richard Lindsay a representative on the
Jefferson Area Board for the Aging (JABA), addressed the Board. The issue of adult day care
is an important one for Albemarle County. The people in the county and the country are all
getting older. An increasing proportion of the population will be in need of some type of
day care. As the number of women in the marketplace increases, more situations are arising
where there are no care givers at home. In this planning district, there are some 367 people
that the Health Systems Agency determined are in need of adult day care (30 percent of the
population of PD 10 is in Albemarle County). Speaking personally, in the last 24 months he
spent 14 months as a primary care giver to his mother and it would have been a benefit to
have someplace available occasionally during the day. As more people retire to Albemarle
County, one of the things to be looked at with extreme care is the spectrum of services
available for elderly people. This is something that needs to be done now to prepare for the
future.
Ms. Ann Brushwood, a county resident and President of the Charlottesville-Piedmont
Chapter of Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association (ADRDA), next addressed the
Board. ADRDA is a voluntary organization working to provide support to Albemarle County
residents who have family members with Alzheimer's disease or other dementia illnesses.
Alzheimer's disease involves the death of any function. There is no known cause, no treat-
ment and no cure. The progress of the disease is gradual and the victim requires care for
years. Almost no health insurance or medicare pays for this kind of care. For years the
victim needs supervision and help with everyday activities such as dressing, bathing, eating,
health monitoring, etc. The burden on the family is physically, emotionally and financially
horrendous. The families of the victims need respite to earn their living, to take care of
household chores and other tasks including rest, which is critically important. Two County
residents who are members of ADRDA, neither of whom could be present tonight, recently gained
some valuable respite through the city's adult support project which is the pilot project for
what is hoped to become a full-time adult day care program. ADRDA asks for the Board's
support of the current project and support of county funding for a proposed full-time pro-
gram. In some cases adult day care can be a low-cost alternative to nursing homes. In other
cases, the availability of adult day care will mean that the primary care giver can maintain
employment, continue to support his/her family, continue to contribute to the community by
paying taxes and avoid the necessity of dependence on public assistance. It saves public and
private dollars, as well as State and Federal dollars. ADRDA will contribute more than ten
percent of its' 1986 budget to support the adult day care program. ADRDA urges the Board to
include funding for adult day care in the County budget, at least the level recommended by
the County staff and review committee.
Ms. Robin Halsey, a concerned citizen and member of the Junior League of Charlottesville
read the following letter dated March 5, 1986 from Susan G. Landin, President of the Junior
League of Charlottesville, addressing the issue of adult day care:
"The Junior'League of Charlottesville strongly supports the establishment
and maintenance of an Adult Day Care Center. We feel that an Adult Day Care
Center is an excellent alternative to placing adults in nursing homes.
Often individuals can be cared for by their families provided that some
respite from the needed 24 hour care is made available. Increasing life
expectancy and the growing number of women working outside the home as well
as the desirability of some free time for the primary caregiver to insure
his or her mental well being are factors which attest to the need for
alternative care for older adults.
Day care centers for the elderly provide a safe, protected environment for
the clients, assist with the client's health needs, allow for stimulating
social interaction among the clients, staff and volunteers as well as
provide relief and support for their families. It has been estimated that
there are 500 potential candidates who could benefit from this service in
our area.
The Junior League of Charlottesville is committed to insuring that older
adults have the opportunities and services essential for their physical,
intellectual, emotional, mental, social and economic well-being and advo-
cates seeing that such opportunities and services do and shall exist.
March 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
353
We have been a part of the task force to plan for an Adult Day Care Center
in Charlottesville. Our volunteers have voted to commit approximately
$2,500 and several volunteers to.this project for. the next year.
We urge the Board of Supervisors to provide funding for this very worthwhile
and needed project."
Regarding the issue of education, Mrs. Martha Wood, President.of the Albemarle Education
Association,.addressed the Board. The Albemarle~Education~Asso¢iation (AEA)supports the
concept of the. proposed budget submitted by the School Board. ~.She emphasized the need for
the Board of Supervisors to fund the proposed budget in order to retain the County's current
level of quality education. There is little or.no growth for new and/or expanded programs.
Increases in the budget are results~of increases in elementary enrollment. The School Board
proposes an 8.2 percent increase in salaries, which does not meet ~the ten percent state
mandate. The ten percent increase is needed to make startingsalaries in Albemarle County
more attractive and competitive with its neighbors and to help retain the experienced per-
sonnel who are currently in the upper levels of the scale. Without the full ten percent
increase, school fund allocations for the second year of the ~biennium will fall short by
approximately $530,000. Mrs. Wood emphasized the need to keep up with ~technology and provide
programs for children in the areas of special education. The State Department of Education
figures, based on fiscal year 1983/84, show that Albemarle .C.ounty ra~ks 18 in the state out
of 140 jurisdictions in its ability to support education. It, however, ranks only 51 in its
support for education and what it actually does. As the federal government continues to
decrease its support for education, it should come as no surprise that the burden for that
support falls back on the state and the localities.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the comparison of the county's ability to pay, and the amount
actually paid reflects fringe benefits. Mrs. Wood replied no; the comparison is based on the
State Composite Index. The Index takes into account local revenues, sales tax, real estate
and personal property.
Mr. Fisher said with regard to the same comparison, during fiscal year 1983-84 Albemarle
County ranked 16 in the state in total dollars per pupil of local money that it spent.
Albemarle County had the sixth highest number of teachers per 1,000 pupils of the 135 locali-
ties in the Commonwealth of'Virginia. It seems to him that the County is putting in more
than its share and is overstaffed to a significant degree. Mrs. Wood said the question is
not whether the County is overstaffed, as indeed it probably is not, but the question is the
methodology used to arrive at the average. There are only one or two jurisdictions in the
state that are at the same level or lower for beginning salaries. Mr. Fisher said there are
only five jurisdictions in the'entire state that have more teachers per 1,000 pupils than
Albemarle County.
Mr. Lindstrom said he does not think the statistics show the whole picture and that when
using statistics one must be careful. He again emphasized that the County is not getting
credit for the fringe benefits being paid for its employees. Mrs. Wood said the most impor-
tant issue is that the children have the services that they need and that the personnel are
on board to serve those needs.
Ms. Julia Broome, Chairman of the Parent Advisory Council at Western Albemarle High
School, representing the Council, addressed the Board. The Council adds it support to the
budget proposed by the School Board in order to maintain quality education. The budget is
lean and reasonable, and any cuts would be detrimental to existing programs. The Council
recommends full funding of the School Board's request. Mr. Fisher commented that full
funding of the School Board's request would wipe out all other social programs in the County.
Mr. Fred Morton, parent, resident and employee of Albemarle County, next addressed the
Board. He has been involved with Albemarle County since 1974. He thinks that the process of
this year's budget preparation is the best it has ever been. He also supports full funding
of the Education budget, but not to the detriment of other programs. The state presently
feels that 150 students per teacher per day is a reasonable low. He does not think as a
principal or teacher that that is correct. The state staffing guidelines are a maximum
figure and he does not think those guidelines provide for quality education. The average
teacher of English at Western Albemarle works 20+ hours a week outside of regular school
hours. With regard to staffing, the realistic life impact of students and teachers should be
kept in mind.
Mr. Lindstrom said he shares Mr. Morton's concern. He and Mr. Bowie last year ~
investigated staffing in the middle schools. He is concerned that workloads should be even.
Mr. Bowie said he thinks the problem is with internal management. He sympathizes with the
teachers carrying large workloads and thinks something needs to be done.
Mr. Lindstrom said his comments have not been directed personally at either of the two
speakers, but he is concerned when statements are made that are not totally accurate. He
also has spent a lot of time looking at the situation and feels there is cause for concern.
Ms. Barbara Taylor, a parent of two high school students, addressed the Board. As a
property taxpayer she very much supports the proposed Education budget. This is her first
attendance at a Board meeting, and her impression is that the Board seems antagonist. She
would rather her money be spent on schools instead of a park on the Rivanna River. Her
daughters are attending an overcrowded high school. She has read in the paper that the Board
intends to lower taxes. After listening to these needs, she does not see how the Board can
consider such an action. Mr. Lindstrom said no decision has been made to lower taxes. One
of the problems with overcrowding in the high school is districting because no one wants to
take the first step.
On non-school items, Ms. Connie Houchens, Manager of Lake Reynovia, addressed the Board
regarding the fees at the County swimming lakes. According to figures complied by Pat
Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, the operation of Chris Greene and Mint Springs
354
March 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Paqe 7)
cost the county $133,000 per year above and beyond the revenues received. If the proposal to
extend the season is approved, the amount will be even greater and when the Southern Regional
Park is built and in operation, this figure will be in excess of $200,000 per year. Expenses
at the county lakes are two and one-third times greater than the revenues received. The
county should substantially increase fees at the county lakes. Low fees are an unfair use of
taxpayer's money and certainly unfair to competition. Because the County is in direct
competition with private enterprise, it should accept a break-even pricing policy for those
businesses and programs which compete with private enterprise. The fees should be high
enough to cover the expenses. Fees at the county lakes have not been raised since 1983, yet
there have been significant increases in expenditures including insurance and wage increases.
In times of fiscal restraint and cutbacks in federal revenue sharing, it is not feasible for
the County to spend in excess of $133,000 per year on a venture which could be producing
additional revenues. Mr. Fisher said Ms. Houchen's comments will be considered in the future
discussion of the parks.
There being non one else to offer comments on the proposed budget, the Board proceeded
with the next agenda item.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-85-98. John Kluge. To locate a radio tower for farm employee
use on a 144.27 acre parcel zoned RA. Property access via private driveway on west side of
St. Rt. 627, about 2,000 feet north of intersection with St. Rt. 727. Tax Map 103, Parcel 1.
Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 18 and February 25,
1986.)
"Request:
Acreage:
Zoning:
Location:
Radio transmission tower (10.2.2.6)
144.27 acres (out of +1350 acres)
RA, Rural Areas
Property, described as TM 103, Parcel 1, is located on the west
side of Route 627 approximately 2000 feet north of Route 727.
Scottsville Magisterial District.
Applicant's Proposal
The applicant proposes location of a two-way radio tower and antenna on the
southeast slope of Carter's Mountain to improve communications among his
various farms in the southeastern area of the County. The tower would be
located at elevation'l,180 feet. Together with antenna, tower height would
be 140 feet bringing total elevation to 1,320 feet. The closest peak of
Carter's Mountain is 2,000 feet northeast with an elevation of 1,275 feet.
No aerial hazard lighting is required by the FAA.
Motorola Communications and Piedmont Electronics, both with facilities on
Carter's Mountain, provide common carrier service to the area (Common
carriers provide two-way and one-way paging services on the same frequency
to many users, similar to party-line telephone service). In 1978, the
County approved SP-78-42, Motorola Communications, a petition to locate a
second common carrier tower on Carter's Mountain to serve 80 customers. The
Carter's Mountain "tower farm" is becoming broadcast congested and diffi-
culty has been encountered in assigning new channels that are compatible to
existing users (intermodulation or garbled signal has been a problem).
Currently, Albemarle Farms shares frequency with 11 other users. With a
base unit and 30 mobile/walkie-talkie units, Albemarle Farms experiences
communication delays and lack of privacy/security. To overcome these
problems, a new private installation is proposed at the main farm.
A special industrial frequency license (i.e. - farm use) has been issued by
the FCC. The five-year renewable license authorizes broadcast at 450 MHz,
which is in the UHF band (UHF TV Channel 14 is 470 MHz). Broadcast power
would be about 35-40 watts.
Character of the Area
The following is a description of the area within one-half mile (~ 500
acres) of the proposed tower site:
The applicant owns about 40 percent of the land. Most other lands are large
mountainous tracts not susceptible to development. Developable land exists
on the opposite side of Carter's Mountain adjacent to Route 20.
About 20 out of 40 lots of Marshall Manor subdivision are within one-half
mile of the site. Of these, the applicant owns eight lots. Currently,
about 11 dwellings are located within one-half mile of the proposed site.
(Residential density is about one dwelling per 50 acres). The closest
dwelling to the tower site is more than 2,000 feet distant. The tower would
be located about 300 feet from the northeast property line. The tower would
be visible from the Route 627 area, however, the roadway is about 8,000 feet
distant.
Staff Comment:
Radio transmission towers are included in all zoning districts as a use by
special use permit, including commercial and industrial zones, as are
"heavier" public utility uses. This is significant for two reasons. First,
the ordinance recognizes that technical considerations may limit or dictate
location of such uses. Second, the ordinance recognizes that such uses are
, 355
March 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
inappropriate to some areas and that each use requires individual and
deliberate review. To authorize a special use permit, the Board of Super-
visors must make positive findings regarding the criteria set forth in
31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance:
A)
The tower will not be of substantial detriment to adjoining properties:
For SP-85-75, Clay Media, staff stated that 'while the Real Estate
Department believes that radio towers would affect property values in
the area to a degree, it should be noted that high-value residential
developments such as Ivy Farms, Ashcroft Planned Residential Develop-
ment, and Shadwell Mountain Estates have developed in proximity to
existing towers.'
As has been outlined in the 'Character of the Area' section of this
report, the proposed tower would be remote from dwellings in the area
both physically and visually. Residential density in the area is
relatively low. Much of the land in vicinity (one-half mile) to the
proposed tower is owned by the applicant and much other land is unsuited
to extensive development.
B)
The tower would not change the character of the district: The tower
rises 40 to 60 feet above the tree line and would change the visual
character of the area to the extent that it would be visible. As
stated earlier, the closest dwelling is more than 2,000 feet away and
Route 627 is about 8000 feet distant.
c)
The tower would be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance including provisions of 5.0 Supplementary Regulations: A
purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is 'to treat lands which are similarly
situated and environmentally similar in like manner with reasonable
consideration for the existing use and character of properties.'
Obviously, a radio tower on this site would be a different usage from
adjoining properties. Staff has historically favored new towers where
other towers already exist as opposed to individual random locations
(The forestry lookout tower and Carter's Mountain 'tower farm' are
about 9,000 and 12,000 feet northeast of this site). Approval of this
petition could set precedent for future similar requests.
Zoning Ordinance provisions do not currently distinguish broadcast
facilities by type such as commercial radio/TV, two-way radio, home-
owner's 'ham' radio, and the like. On at least one occasion in the
past, a two-way radio antenna was permitted to be located on a building
as an accessory use; no tower was involved (Dansey Plumbing near
Scottsville). Often such installations are less obtrusive than the
homeowner's dish TV reception antenna.
Several sections of the Zoning Ordinance are relevant to this petition:
o Section 4.10.2.2 requires certain verifications from the FAA and
Virginia Department of Aviation. No obstruction marking or
lighting is required by the FAA. Since the tower is less than 150
feet in height, no certification is required from the Virginia
Department of Aviation.
Section 4.10.3.1 requires that the tower shall not be located
closer to any property line than the height of the tower unless
specifically authorized by the Planning Commission. The tower
would be located +300 feet from the closest adjoining property and
therefore, would ~atisfy this requirement.
Section 5.1.12 requires amon~ other things that the 'proposed use
at the location selected will not endanger the health and safety
of workers and/or residents in the community and will not impair
or prove detrimental to nei~hborin~ properties or the development
of the same.' The site is remote from developed areas and sub-
stantial development in vicinity of the tower site is unlikely due
to topography. Broadcast power is very low compared to commercial
transmissions. Broadcast frequency is above the resonant frequency
range (The resonant frequency range, 30-300 MHz, represents
maximum body absorption of radiowaves).
D)
The tower would be in harmony with uses permitted by right: The
purpose of this petition is to improve communication among various farm
holdings of Albemarle Farms. The Comprehensive Plan is supportive of
maintenance/enhancement of agricultural activities.
E)
The tower would be consistent with the ~ublic health, safety and
welfare: As has been outlined earlier an this report, due to remote-
ness and several other factors, staff opinion is that a tower in this
location would not be contrary to the public health, safety, and
welfare.
Staff Recommendation
As has been stated in past reviews, staff is concerned about random location
of individual towers throughout the County, giving preference to multiple
towers in confined areas (i.e. - tower farms). Having stated this reserva-
tion, approval of this petition would be consistent with the criteria for
issuance of a special use permit and consistent with past actions. Staff
recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
356
March 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
®
Staff approval of sketch plan showing tower location and means of
access, and limits of clearing;
Building Official approval;
Compliance with 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance;
Submit copies of FCC, FAA, and other approvals."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission at its meeting on February 18, 1986, unanimously
recommended approval of SP-85-98 subject to the conditions of the staff.
Mr. Lindstrom asked about the distance between towers on Carter's Mountain. Mr. Horne
said there is approximately 12,000 feet difference in the location of the towers.
Mr. Fisher commented that the area of coverage seems to be large for a single farm
operation. Mr. Horne said it is his understanding that the coverage is due more to the
location than the power of the broadcast system. The broadcast power is only 35 to 45 watts
which is a low power system.
Mrs. Cooke referenced paragraph "D" which states "... to improve communication among
farm holdings of Albemarle Farms," and asked if all of the farms are owned by the same
individual or if it is for inner-farm communication. Mr. Horne said Albemarle Farms is an
umbrella organization with extensive holdings and is owned by one individual.
Mr. Fisher commented that although the mobile operation transmitter is 30 watts, the
fixed transmitter base is designed for 110 watts which could make a considerable difference
in the coverage. Mr. Horne said that may be the case, but it his understanding that the use
will be only for 35 to 40 watts. Mr. Fisher asked if the applicant presently has a transmit-
ter on Carter's Mountain. Mr. Horne said not to the staff's knowledge, but during discussion
at the Planning Commission meeting, it was stated that this tower would be located near the
existing towers.
Mr. Fisher said he has heard that rental fees for the towers on Carter's Mountain have
increased substantially and if that is the case, the Board may be seeing requests for a
number of towers. He is really concerned about proliferation of towers at individual sites.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Tim Wood, agent for the applicant, addressed the
Board. Albemarle Farms consists of a total of eight farms. If approved, the tower would be
located 2,000 feet from existing towers on Carter's Mountain. The applicant does not pres-
ently own a tower on Carter's Mountain. He does not think approval of this request will set
a precedent.
Mr. Steve Garner of Motorola next addressed the Board. Albemarle Farms is presently
using a community based station which means several customers are on a base station and take
turns using the station. Albemarle Farms wants its own tower for privacy and security
reasons. Presently, Albemarle Farms uses walkie-talkies. The proposed tower would be
between 9,000 and 12,000 feet from the existing'towers on Carter's Mountain. Mr. Fisher
asked the transmitting power of the tower base station. Mr. Garner said power is 110 watts,
but after traveling through a duplexer, the power is half that amount. Mr. Fisher asked the
peak hours for use of the community base station. Mr. Garner said between 8:00 A.M. and 9:30
A.M. and between 4:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M. Mr. Fisher asked what time delay customers are
experiencing. Mr. Garner said the average delay time is several minutes. The average
transmission is 45 seconds to a minute. One problem experienced by Albemarle Farms is the
ability to use the station when needed. Another problem is ~lack of privacy. The message is
heard by everyone else. Mr. Fisher asked the cost of the tower. Mr. Garner replied $22,000.
With no one else from the public present to speak for or against the application, the
public hearing was closed.
Mr. Lindstrom said he has a problem with this application because he sees little, if
any, public benefit to the location of the tower. He thinks that 12,000 feet away is a
considerable distance along a very prominent ridge line. In addition, approval of this
request will set a precedent. He has been concerned for a long time about the proliferation
of towers which the Board has attempted to concentrate in one area. He thinks that the
location of a new site for towers should be done in a more organized fashion than simply
responding to applications on a first-come, first-served-basis. He is not inclined to
support the application.
Mr. Henley asked if the tower must be 110 feet in height. Mr. Garner said it is impor-
tant to get the tip of the antenna over the tree tops. The tower will only be visible from
Mr. Kluge's property. Mr. Henley said he thinks the Board will receive more requests for
towers and he thinks the staff should consider a height for approval in the future. Mr.
Fisher said this is not a situation where no service is available. This request could be the
beginning of a major intrusion in the County's skyline, if the Board starts moving towers off
of Carter's Mountain. Carter's Mountain has been ideal for towers because of its terrain and
availability. He also is not inclined to support the request. He does not see a public or
private benefit in supporting the request.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks it is inevitable that there will be an increased demand for
towers in the County, but there is a need for a more organized and comprehensive approach to
identifying potential sites for towers rather than opening up every point of high elevation
in the County to the potential construction of towers. The Board has established a fairly
clear definition of where towers are permitted and this is the first step away from that
definition. One of the greatest assets this County has is its skylines, elevations and
topography. He is uneasy about beginning a trend that may result in cluttering mountains at
random.
Mr. Henley said it is possible that some television antennas are that high, but he would
feel more comfortable if there were some guidelines. He would like an opportunity to look at
the site of the proposed tower. He also would like to know if the tower would create inter-
ference with citizen's television and radio reception.
March 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
357'
Mrs. Cooke said she also would like to know if this installation would interfere with
other receivers in the area. Mr. Garner again addressed the Board and said different
frequencies are required for each type of use. The type of frequency required for this radio
tower is not the same as that used for a television or radio. Also, there are organizations
that protect users of other frequencies.
Mr. Henley said he would like to defer action on this request so that he can go out to
visit the site. Mr. Bowie said he has no problem with the request as presented, but if Board
members want to see the property, he will go along with deferral.
Mr. Garner again said he does not think this request will set a precedent. The appli-
cant is experiencing problems with the present service. There are inter-mode problems
affecting all the users because of the large amount of UHF frequencies on Carter's Mountain.
Mr. Garner presented to the Board a detailed drawing (on file) showing the tower structure.
The public hearing was again closed.
Mr. Way said if Board members want to look at the property, they should be given the
opportunity to do so. He does not have a problem with the application, but he would support
deferring the application. Mr. Way then offered motion to defer SP-85-98 until March 19,
1986, to give the Board members an opportunity to visit the site. Mr. Henley seconded the
motion.
Mr. Lindstrom said the problem is not what the site looks like. This is simply a random
relocation. With no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
(The Board recessed at 9:15 P.M. and reconvened at 9:26 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-85-33. Earlysville Forest PUD, Tract B Amendment. To divide
109 acres into 69 lots, zoned PUD. Located off an extension of Earlysville Forest Drive
which will connect to Rt. 743. Tax Map 31, Parcels 31 and 46 (part of). Rivanna District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 18 and February 25, 1986.)
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report:
"Petition: Earlysville Forest Land Trust (contract purchaser) petitions the
Board of Supervisors to amend ZMA-81-11, S. Daley Craig (Earlysville Forest
PUD), to increase the maximum potential development from 155 to 202 single-
family residential lots, an increase of 47 lots. The portion of the PUD
subject to this petition consists of ~109 acres, described as Tax Map 31,
parcels 31 and 46, and has frontage on Rte. 743 about 1/2 mile northeast of
Rte. 663. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Background: Originally called Forest Run, PUD zoning was approved initially
in 1980 (Attachment C: original staff report). In 1981, ZMA-81-11, S. Daley
Craig, sought amendment of the proposed physical layout as well as relief
from conditions requiring water service by a central well system. The new
physical layout was approved, however, conditions related to water service
were not altered.
Comprehensive Plan: Most of this property is located within the designated
Earlysville Village of the Comprehensive Plan. A density of one dwelling
per acre is recommended for areas served by at least one central utility.
Original gross density of the PUD was one dwelling per 3.1 acres. Gross
density under the proposed amendment (for Section 9) would be one dwelling
per 1.6 acres. Therefore proposed density is consistent with Comprehensive
Plan recommendations.
(Mr. Horne said there was a lot of discussion concerning the density at the Planning
Commission meeting. The original approval for 155 units was less than what could have been
developed by-right. By right, 220 units could have been developed. However, the zoning was
not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for the area. When the original
PUD was presented, the recommendation in the Comprehensive Plan was for 133 units. This
request is for a slight increase in that density, but would still be less than the Compre-
hensive Plan's recommendation. Mr. Fisher asked when the original plan was presented. Mr.
Horne said the original approval was in 1980, before the change in the Zoning Ordinance. In
1981, Mr. Craig requested an amendment.)
Staff Comment:
In addition to an increase of 47 lots, open space would be reduced by 25
acres from 171 to 146 acres. This would not substantially affect existing
developed areas of the PUD (i.e. Sections 1-8) since about 127 open space
acres were platted in those areas. Open space in Section 9 would consist
primarily of steep slopes, swales, and stream areas. Maintaining these
areas in a natural state would provide added protection to Chris Greene
Lake, a recreational facility and supplementary water supply (see Attachment
A, on file, for comments of the Watershed Management Official).
Lots in Section 9 must comply with current zoning requirements including:
Minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet and all lots served by a central
well system.
358
March 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
Evidence of a building site for each lot to consist of a minimum 30,000
square foot contiguous area in slopes of less than 25 percent.
Two septic drainfield locations to be approved by the Health
Department.
From cursory review it appears that seven lots lack adequate building sites.
Most of these lots could be improved by lot line adjustments, however, it
does not appear that 67 lots can be achieved without wholesale plan
revision.
Other concerns of the Site Review Committee members which will be addressed
during the subdivision review process are briefly outlined as follows (see
Attachment A, on file, for more detail):
This property is located within the watershed of Chris Greene Lake, a
recreational facility and supplementary water supply. The Watershed
Management Official has stated that 'construction practices designed to
preserve and promote area water quality and quantity should be used
during the project construction.' The applicant shall consult with the
Watershed Management Official and the County Engineer as to specific
practices prior to subdivision plat review by the Planning Commission.
The Fire Official has stated that current facilities for fire fighting
purposes are totally inadequate, has discussed this matter with the
applicant, and agreement has been reached as to improvements to be
made. Such improvements must be installed by the applicant and tested
and approved by the Fire Official prior to any final plat approval.
Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation has stated that the
increased number of lots will require additional pavement strength on
existing road segments within the PUD. All road improvements including
upgrading of existing roadways in accordance with Virginia Department
of Highways & Transportation requirements must be constructed or bonded
prior to subdivision plat approval.
The County Engineer has recommended that, in addition to approval of
public road and drainage plans and computations and issuance of an
erosion control permit, the County Engineer approve the central well
system and wetness well testing. Verification of adequate water supply
by the County Engineer will be required prior to subdivision plat
review by the Planning Commission.
Staff Recommendation:
Under the prior zoning ordinance, conditions of approval were imposed by the
County on PUD petitions resulting in lengthy documents which often repeated
other zoning/subdivision regulations. Under the current zoning ordinance
the County and developer are to execute agreements, contracts, and the like
related to the planned development. These documents have been comparatively
brief with specifics of the project addressed by the various local ordi-
nances. In this particular case, staff would recommend that due to existing
development of the PUD, conditions of ZMA-81-11 (Attachment B, on file) be
amended to accommodate this proposal and remain in force. Staff recommends
that the Planning Commission recommend approval of this petition subject to
the applicant submitting a written agreement to the Director of Planning and
Community Development no later than February 28, 1986 and including the
following provisions:
Agreement to proceed in accordance with conditions of approval of
ZMA-81-11, to be amended as follows:
A.2. Approval is for a maximum of ~5 202 single-family lots subject to
conditions contained herein provided that lots in Section 9 shall
comply with regulations in effect at time of approval of ZMA-85-33.
Location and acreages of various land uses shall comply with the
approved plan, provided that variations from the approved plan for
Section 9 may be authorized in accordance with 8.5.6.3 of the Zoning
Ordinance. In the final site plan and subdivision process, open space
shall be dedicated in proportion to the number of lots approved. The
Commission may permit dedication of a lesser acreage of open space in a
particular case due to remoteness of open space areas from that section
platted; provided that, in no event, shall open space consist of less
than 25 percent of the cumulative area platted and provided further
that the cumulative total of ~ 146 acres shall be dedicated concomi-
tant with the approval of the final phase of residential development.
D.5. A building separation of 100 feet shall be maintained for dwell-
ings in Sections 1 through 8. For Section 9 the following yard re-
quirements shall be observed:
Front - 30 feet
Side - 25 feet
Rear - 20 feet
Agreement to proceed with final subdivision planning in accordance with
'Staff Comment' section of this report.
359
March 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
Note: Conditions D.2, D.3, and D.4 address matters of water service. The
Board of Supervisors may wish to review these conditions during deliberation
on expansion of central well system."
Mr. Horne said the staff received a new set of plans and some soils statements today,
which have not been fully evaluated. The new plans show a reduction in the number of lots
from 67 lots to 63 lots. It appears that even with 63 lots, there will be some lots where
there will be problems meeting acceptable soil types for septic tanks and meeting buildable
area provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The lot layout and general configuration of the new
plan is similar to that reviewed by the Planning Commission. There have been some minor lot
line adjustments in an attempt to address concerns regarding the suitability of some soils on
the sites for drainfields. The thrust of the staff report is to evaluate the overall suit-
ability of this expansion and to allow use of the detailed information during the subdivision
process to establish the precise number and configuration of the lots.
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission at its meeting on February 25, 1986, unanimously
recommended denial of ZMA-85-33. The Planning Commission felt that this increased density,
as to the overall design, is incompatible with their original concept of the Earlysville
Forest PUD, and is inappropriate for development in this particular location. The Planning
Commission also felt that some of the technical items need to be further addressed before
they take action in which they feel confident.
Mr. Fisher said the Board has the option of referring this new plan back for review by
the staff and the Planning Commission or can proceed. Mr. Horne said he does not think there
are any more policy statements the staff would make, but it would give the Board a better
idea of the exact number of lots on which construction could take place. The staff does not
think this design is inconsistent with either the Comprehensive Plan or with the Earlysville
Forest PUD plan. Mr. Fisher asked the size of the smallest lot. Mr. Horne said he did not
have that information. Mr. Bowie asked if there would be a change in the staff report if
several lots were unbuildable. Mr. Horne said no. The staff relied on the general suita-
bility of the site and not so much the specifics. If the County wants people to move into
its village areas, it must be somewhat flexible with densities. This density is consistent
with that recommended in the Comprehensive Plan and would tend to encourage people to move
into the village area. Mr. Fisher asked if this expansion can be done using the existing
well system. Mr. Horne responded that this expansion will require enlargement of the central
well system. Although this would be a central water system, there would be individual
drainfields for sewage disposal. Mr. Horne said in the existing development, there is a dry
fire hydrant at Lake 92, but because of access and various other problems, the fire official
does not think it is adequate. This proposal includes installation of a hydrant at another
location with a pump located at the lake. Water would be pumped through a pipe to the
hydrant located by the roadway. This procedure would be easier for access and there would be
an actual pump to maintain pressure. The fire official commented that if this improvement
takes place, he foresees no problem with the expansion of Earlysville Forest. Mrs. Cooke
asked if the two lakes have the capability of furnishing water for fire protection. Mr.
Horne said the lakes have the capability if improvements are made, but as he understands it,
there are no dry hydrant facilities available.
Mr. Henley asked if the staff agrees with the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Horne said the staff feels that the general Comprehensive Plan policy of attempting to
put people in villages outweighs the concern about the increased density.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. George Gilliam, representing the applicant, addressed
the Board. Mr. Gilliam handed out a chart on the history of Earlysville Forest. In, 1980
under the zoning, which existed before the first PUD application, 220 units could have been
developed by-right. The applicant is requesting a total of 202 units. Under the Comprehen-
sive Plan in effect, when this project was first considered, the recommendation was for 133
units. In 1981 the Board approved 155 units of which 135 have been developed. In 1983,
after substantial changes to the Comprehensive Plan, 486 units were recognized for the
Earlysville Forest PUD. Although this request is for an increase over what was approved five
years ago, the applicant requests less than one-half of the density recommended in the
current Comprehensive Plan and 18 less units than that which could have been developed
by-right as a conventional subdivision in 1980. When this PUD was considered by the Board on
October 5, 1983, the following statement was included in the staff report:
"Earlysville: About one-half of the prior Earlysville Village area was
within the Rivanna Reservoir Watershed. The new Comprehensive Plan shifts
the village area eastward to include Earlysville Forest PUD and other
properties."
It is clear from Board action in 1983 that Board members were aware that there would be
an increase in density in this PUD. At that same meeting, the League of Women Voters favored
zoning that keeps up with the increase in density, with the following statement made by Mrs.
Carol Jackson:
"For years the League of Women Voters of Charlottesville and Albemarle
County has urged comprehensive planning for Albemarle County supporting a
blueprint to allow the county to grow in a rational way and in the best
interest of all county residents. This Comprehensive Plan calls for growth
to take place in certain designated communities and villages. Restrictions
on growth and nearby areas were designed to help protect watersheds, the
drinking water sources and we favor this. We think that zoning should
follow the Comprehensive Plan in order that the objectives of the Compre-
hensive Plan be achieved."
An extensive study was done on the Earlysville Village area and the impact on this PUD.
All of the concerns of Planning Commission members regarded the density, except a concern of
Mr. Bowerman with regard to water. Although the comments of the Commission should be consid-
ered, the Board must realize that it has already considered the density for this area. The
360
March 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
applicant has agreed to provide additional water services as required by the fire official.
All requirements for slopes, cuts, fills, grades, etc, will be met. All erosion control,
sedimentation and similar requirements will be met. Earlysville Forest is one of the most
outstanding subdivision developments in Albemarle County.
Mr. Gilliam said in 1980 the Board required installation of a central water system. The
system has been regularly tested by the State Water Control Board and the results are posi-
tive. The applicant requests that this matter not be referred back to the Planning Commis-
sion, but that it be approved as proposed with the understanding that several of the lots may
be unbuildable. A soils study performed by Mr. Gooch indicates that 63 lots will have
adequate drainfield sites. The applicant would like to proceed with this as soon as possible.
The demand for housing in the Earlysville Forest area is very strong. The applicant also
received a copy of a letter addressed to the Board dated February 25, 1986 from the League of
Women Voters. There are a number of factual errors included in the letter. Reference in the
second paragraph is made to a completely inappropriate section of the Zoning Ordinance. The
section referenced deals with a variance which has nothing to do with this rezoning. The
fourth paragraph references 133 units which is in error; 155 units were approved in 1981.
The fire official is responsible for building separation, not the applicant. In light of the
complete soils analysis test, the concern about septic drainfields is ill-placed.
The staff report states that "Such improvements to the fire system must be installed by
the applicant and tested and approved by the fire official prior to any plat approval."
Prior to the Planning Commission meeting, he discussed this with Mr. Ron Keeler of the
Planning Department, and indicated that the necessary equipment, the pumps, etc., must first
be obtained for installation of the pumping station in Lake 91 and then will require time to
be completely installed. Mr. Keeler agreed that the words "final plat approval" be replaced
with "certificate of occupancy". If the Board approves this request, he and Mr. Fred Payne
will draft the agreement referenced in the staff report. These additional units in Earlysville
Forest will be developed in the same manner as previous developments.
Mr. Fisher asked if 40,000 square feet is the minimum lot size. Mr. Gilliam replied
yes. Mr. Fisher then asked if minimum building separation is 50 feet. Mr. Horne said that
is a fire code, not a zoning requirement. Mr. Fisher asked any lots in Earlysville Forest
required that sewage be pumped to the disposal site. Mr. Gilliam replied not to his know-
ledge. Mr. Daley Craig said sewage is being pumped on some individual lots, but no sewage is
transported off of one lot onto another lot. Mr. Fisher asked the minimum lot size that has
been developed. Mr. Craig said the smallest lot developed is between 40,000 and 45,000
square feet. Mr. Fisher commented that references to anything allowed by-right in 1980 is
immaterial and has no bearing on this application. At that time, the owner had actually
requested a reduction to 155 units.
Mr. Allan Kendrick, a resident of Earlysville and an adjoining property owner said he
would rather see the development remain as is, but considering that the area is zoned for
village, it will be developed. He would be apprehensive to start with another developer at
this time. Reluctantly, he thinks the Board should approve this proposal since there is the
experience of the first phase of the development which has been done quite nicely. The trees
and landscaping have been preserved and the houses are isolated from one another. He thinks
the same results will emerge in the new development. As to the number of lots in this
section, he thinks the County has the mechanics to control that number.
Mr. Barry Dofflemeyer, an adjacent property owner, said he also agrees that Earlysville
Forest is one of the most well-developed subdivisions in the area and that it will continue
to be done as such. However, this application creates a major difference in density. This
is an increase of 47 lots over the original proposal. He would also like to reemphasize that
what was allowed by-right is no longer the issue. The terrain of the property is steep. It
is obvious that approximately seven lots will not meet soils requirements. There has been no
reference to the lots that have a reduction in developable space and whether those lots will
meet the 20 percent grade for septic systems. There are already problems with sewage in
Earlysville Heights which is 1,700 feet to the south of this area. In 1980 there was concern
about the availability of water in the area. Population growth in the area is not being
supported by growth of water and septic facilities. His home is near the stream that flows
through this subdivision and during the summertime he sees the effluent that flows from
Earlysville Heights, trash and in some situations, the overflow from septic systems. He is
concerned that tests have not been done on the apparent slope of the lots. Even though the
soil may be suited, the slope may be too steep to support a septic system. The Board must
give consideration to what will happen if the wells run dry. He applauds Craig Builders for
its installation of the lakes, but a lake needs to be considered for the back portion of the
subdivision. He also is concerned about the total loss of buffer space around the perimeter
of the property. In the September 30, 1980 staff report for SP-80-57 it states: "Open space
is employed for a variety of uses such as: defining small residential clusters, providing
tail linkages, protection of stream environs, and providing a buffer on the perimeter of the
development." He operates a commercial kennel by special use permit. He is concerned about
the problem that neighbors may have in the lots which abuts his commercial kennel. Although
he does not anticipate future growth of the kennel, buffering should be considered now to
avoid problems in the future. Presently there is a buffer, but it is eliminated from the new
plans. The original staff report further states: "A lake is shown in the western end of the
development to serve recreational purposes and provide protection to Chris Greene Lake."
There are no recreational facilities in Earlysville. A great portion of the playground was
lost with the renovations at Broadus Wood School. There is a need for recreational facili-
ties which should be developed along with this section. Craig Builders operates a construc-
tion dump on the entrance to his and Mr. Stuart Wood's property. Craig Builders is not
policing the dump and the public is taking advantage of the dump. He has spoken with the
Zoning office and been informed that there is nothing that can be done about the dump. He
presented several pictures of the dump site and said the issue needs to be addressed.
Possibly a fence needs to be installed to restrict access to the property. He thinks the
Board needs to review the concerns of the League of Women Voters. He reiterated the need to
maintain the buffers and the importance of maintaining the same level of development.
March 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
361
Mr. Henley commented that it is not the County's responsibility to police a private
dump. If Mr. Craig cannot police_the area, then it_should bel.Shut..down.
Mr. Don Bragg, a resident of EarlysVille Forest,. next addressed the Board. He is con-
cerned about inadequate water supply and inadequate fire protection. If those areas are
adequately addressed he has no problem with the new proposal. Craig Builders has looked out
for the interests and concerns of the residents of Earlys~ille Forest.
With no further comments from the public for or against the application, the public
hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowie said with regard to buffering, he is more inclined to support screening the
kennel from the subdivision rather than the other way around. Mr. Henley said he disagrees
with Mr. Bowie. The kennel was there first. Mr. Lindstrom said the conditions of approval
by the staff indicate locations and acreage of various land uses shall comply with the
approved plan. It is vague to him as to what the approved plan is and what the meaning is of
"locations and acreage of various land uses". Does that incorporate the buffer? The previou~
condition regarding a buffer appears to be deleted from the new plan. Mr. Horne said the
buffer has been deleted. The new plan includes a reduction in the open space areas.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is torn because the Board set the density for this area in the
Comprehensive Plan and he has tried to adhere to the plan. If the plan is not followed there
will be "hodgepodge development". He also is concerned that the same character of develop-
ment be maintained. He would feel more comfortable in voting approval for this if the staff
and the Planning Commission were first given an opportunity to review the new plan.
Mr. Bowie said he does not see anything materially different from the original request.
The request is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He thinks the subdivision process
will handle the direction of the lots. He intends to support the request. Mr. Lindstrom
said he is not sure the subdivision process will deal with the buffer issue. If the PUD is
approved, it is approved as a general plan and unless the buffer is included, there is no
negotiation. Mr. Horne said Mr. Lindstrom is correct.
Mrs. Cooke said the application is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, but the
Board decided that whenever new information was presented without benefit of review by the
staff, a decision would be postponed until after such review. She feels Mr. Lindstrom has a
legitimate concern about the buffering and she would feel more comfortable in voting for this
if she had advantage of the staff's review. Mr. Gilliam indicated that the applicant has no
objection to postponement of a decision until review by the staff.
Mr. Fisher said he thinks the issue is whether the Board intends to change a plan as
originally requested and approved, and which has served as the basis of expectations of the
people in the subdivision and the surrounding area. It seems to him that the issues are the
buffer, density, lot size and adequate space for drainfields. No more units can be developed
on property than the ability to get rid of the sewage. He does not think the new proposal
retains that intrinsic part of the original PUD.
Mr. Bowie then offered motion to defer ZMA-85-33 until March 19, 1986, to allow the
staff an opportunity to review the revised plan received on March 5, 1986, and to provide
additional information on the proposed number of units, density and drainfields. Mr. Way
seconded the motion. Mr. Lindstrom commented that it would be helpful to him if a Compre-
hensive Plan map of the Earlysville area could be presented at the March 19 meeting. With no
further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 9. Discussion: County/City/University Agreement.
Mr. St. John said his office was asked to contact the attorney for the City and the
legal advisor to the University to insure that the three attorneys agree on the language to
be included in the County/City/University Agreement. The attorneys did not feel that they
could tamper with the existing language without tampering with the substance of the
agreement.
Mr. Fisher said for purposes of the record, he, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Agnor met with
representatives of the University and the City for a number of weeks beginning in November,
1985, to determine what the University proposes to do with its new Real Estate Foundation,
what type of organization it would be and whether its characteristics would be that of a
private foundation or of a public agency. Those issues were important to the County because
they would determine whether or not the Foundation was exempt from County zoning laws and if
the properties owned by the Foundation would be taxable by the County. This concern was
discussed at several meetings that resulted in an agreement that not only determines the
objectives of the Real Estate Foundation, but also sets out a program for joint planning
between the three jurisdictions and if the agreement is adopted by the County and the City
(the University is ready to sign), the University will give up some of its powers for use of
property in the County without going through the zoning and other land use regulations of the
County. This was not anticipated when the meetings began and it is a major step forward. It
will be a step in a positive direction if it can be determined how to proceed with the other
parts of the agreement, how to do the planning, how to arbitrate disputes and in effect how
to get along in areas where there is friction. Before the Board tonight is the procedural
issue of whether the Board wants to set a public hearing or refer the agreement to the
Planning Commission for its comments. This agreement comes to the Board with the recommen-
dation of the County, City and University and it is recommended that the Board move forward
with some method of consideration.
362
March 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Bowie asked if the Committee recommended that the document be forwarded to the
Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher said the Committee has not discussed that issue. He thought
the Board should decide how to proceed.
Mrs. Cooke said she has some real concerns and questions on how the agreement will work
and whether it is a defendable-type of agreement. It is also a concern of hers that the
University may at some point enter into competition with local real estate interests and
local developers of real estate. Before this Board makes any decisions, she feels the
Planning Commission should review the agreement. She would support a motion that the agree-
ment be referred to the Planning Commission for its review and then the Board hold a public
hearing, but if the Planning Commission so desires, it may hold a public hearing.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to refer the County/City/University agreement to the
Planning Commission to receive comments on the concept of the agreement and the mechanics of
how it is to be implemented. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 10. Approval of Minutes: October 10, 1984.
The minutes of October 10, 1984 were not read and thus transferred to the next meeting.
Agenda Item No. 11. Appointments.
There were no names offered for appointment.
Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda From the Board and Public.
Item No. 4.1. Memorandum dated February 20, 1986 from Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of
Planning & Community Development, re: Planning Commission Action - Innisfree Village
(SP-80-79):
"EnclOsed you will find some material concerning a request by Innisfree
Village for expansion of their use to locate community facilities for
dining, kitchen, gymnasium, pool and office space beyond the boundaries of
the parcels approved under the above special permit. At their meeting of
February 18, 1986 the Planning Commission reviewed this information and
determined that, in their opinion, this did not constitute an expansion that
would necessitate a formal amendment to the special permit. The Commission
felt that the original special permit approval, which did limit the uses to
specific parcels, was designed to limit the amount of land enjoying the tax
exempt status and not to limit the use of the land owned by Innisfree
Village for these types of uses. The Planning Commission did, however,
instruct the staff to bring this to the Board's attention in their consent
agenda in order for them to review this determination by the Planning
Commission. If the Board of Supervisors agrees with the determination, the
staff will proceed with site planning with the applicant. Should the Board
decide that this expansion necessitates a formal amendment to the special
permit, the staff will start this process with the applicant.
Proposal:
To locate community facilities including dining, kitchen,
gymnasium, swimming pool and office space, beyond the
boundary of the parcels approved for SP-80-79.
Acreage:
This site is +4 acres; total area is 372.28 acres.
Zoninq:
RA, Rural Areas, with SP-80-79.
Location:
Property described as Tax Map 14, Parcels 10A and 10 part, is
located off a private road on the north side of Route 765,
north of Montfair. White Hall Magisterial District.
Character of the Area:
This property is located in a rural area of the County adjacent to the
Shenandoah National Park. Innisfree Village is a working farm which also
includes work shops, housing and eating facilities for the developmentally
disabled.
Summary:
On January 14, 1981, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors approved
$P-80-79 Innisfree Village, for an independent living facility for the
developmentally disabled. On January 6, 1981, the Albemarle County Planning
Commission approved the site plan.
SP-80-79 was approved with condition ~1 "Special Use Permit limited to Tax
Map 14, Parcels 3A, 10A, 10B, 10C and 10E." It is evident from minutes of
the Board of Supervisors meeting that this condition was imposed to limit
the amount of land enjoying the tax exempt status.
The proposed expansion of Innisfree Village would be a few acres (approxi-
mately four acres) beyond those existing (tax-exempt) parcel boundaries.
Planning staff has discussed this with Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance,
363
March 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
and Bruce Woodzell, Director of Real .Estate. It was determined that the ~14
parcel should be resurveyed to include only this additional area being
developed for Innisfree. This area would also be subject to roll back
taxes.
According to Mr. Payne (Deputy County Attorney), the Planning Commission may
determine that this expansion may be accomplished by an amendment to parcel
boundaries, and not an amendment of SP-80-79, if the Commission feels this
is appropriate.
Mr. Henley said he would like the Board to discuss the memo on Innisfree. Mr. St. John
said the Planning Commission, on the advise of Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney,
determined that what Innisfree now wants to do does not require an amendment to the special
use permit. If the Board agrees with that decision, the amendment will be done administra-
tively and the matter will not come before the Board. If the Board does not agree and thinks
Innisfree's request requires an amendment, the Board will hear the request after a recommen-
dation from the Planning Commission. Mr. Henley said he thought that when the Board approved
the special use permit for Innisfree, the approval was for a certain parcel of land and if
that was to change, Innisfree had to come back to the Board. Mr. St. John said he agrees
with Mr. Henley. He thinks the change does require an amendment to the special use permit.
Mr. Fisher said he also agrees with Mr. Henley. Mr. St. John said the Board therefore needs
to take action to the effect that Innisfree's request constitutes an amendment to the original
special use permit and should be treated as such. Mr. Henley then offered motion that
Innisfree Village be treated in the same manner as any other amendment to a special use
permit. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and WaY.
None.
Mr. Fisher reminded the Board members of the meeting with the Highway Commission on
March 20, 1986 at 1:00 P.M., at the Highway Research Council building at the University of
Virginia.
Mr. Fisher said he received a letter from Mr. Raymond Haas, Vice President for Adminis-
tration and Chairman, Master Plan Committee, University of Virginia. The letter stated that
the University's Master Plan Committee will soon begin the process of revising the land use
plan for the Grounds. A subcommittee of the Master Plan Committee has been appointed to
oversee the process. The purpose of the letter was to request recommendation of a repre-
sentative of Albemarle County to serve as a non-voting advisory member of the subcommittee
for the duration of the study. Mr. Fisher asked for guidance on who should serve on the
committee. Mr. Agnor said someone from the Planning Commission or Planning staff should
serve on the committee. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the Board ask Mr. David Bowerman,
Chairman of the Planning Commission, to serve on the committee. He thinks that it is impor-
tant to show the University that someone in Mr. Bowerman's position is willing to do this.
Mrs. Cooke said she supports Mr. Lindstrom's recommendation. Mr. Lindstrom then offered
motion to ask Mr. Bowerman if he will serve on the UVA Master Planning Subcommittee as a
non-voting advisory member representing Albemarle County. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Horne said recently there has been a lot of discussions with the Highway Department
and various developers around the Rio Road/Rt. 29 intersection. About two weeks ago, Mr.
Roosevelt stated that the planning division of the Highway Department is actively in the
process of surveying and designing a project between Rio Road and Hydraulic Road for the
first phase of the improvements to Rt. 29 North. The proposed project will include eight
lanes on Rt. 29 North in that location and a grade-separated interchange at Rio Road. Up to
this time, the staff thought the the first phase of the project would be six lanes from Rio
Road to Hydraulic. The staff has concerns about the interchange which is proposed to be a
diamond interchange, and not a clover-leaf. Such an interchange would have severe economic
impacts on that entire area. It would remove Hardees and Bojangles, severely affect the
access or remove both the Rio Road/Rt. 29 offices and University Firestone which is just
ready to start construction, cause a major adjustment to Wendy's, Desserts & More and the
bakery shop, and would close the Rt. 29 access to Albemarle Square and leaving its sole
access from Rio Road. The Highway Department would then proceed to close the northern
entrance to Fashion Square Mall. There would then be an increase in the level of service in
the traffic on Rt. 29. In the staff's opinion, the traffic on Rio Road would remain at its
present level. The project would require two stop lights for Rio Road; one at each section
of the ramps on the east and west side of Rt. 29. The CATS Plan shows this interchange as a
Phase III project and the Hydraulic Road interchange as a Phase IV project. The CATS Plan
shows six-laning from Hydraulic Road to the River as Phase I. The staff would like some
direction as to what the Board wants it to do. If the Highway Department is actively design-
ing this proposal and the staff is actively approving proposals in the area, any new
developments in the area will be for nought.
Mr. Fisher requested that the staff prepare a presentation for the Board to make when it
meets with the Highway Commission on March 20. Mr. Horne said the Highway Department could
not give him a design at this point, only a verbal description, but a diamond interchange in
its smallest configuration will assuredly have those impacts he mentioned.
Mr. Lindstrom said the Board has to be careful about this project. It has been
committed for a long time by both the CATS Plan and Comprehensive Plan to these improvements.
The only difference is that the phasing is changing. This is not a plan that has never been
364
March 5, 1986 (Regular .Night Meeting)
mentioned. Mr. Horne commented that these changes are to take place within the next couple
of years. Mr. Lindstrom said one of the consequences of these immediate changes is that they
will be less disruptive now than ten years from now. Mr. Horne said that is true, but an
interchange is extremely expensive to build. Mr. Fisher asked if the interchange would
delete altogether or delay Phase I of the project. Mr. Horne said he does not know, but it
could be added in as an additional benefit of Phase I. The staff does not have any official
confirmation of these changes, but Mr. Roosevelt has stated to him verbally three times that
his District Engineer has confirmed this. Mr. Roosevelt does not think there is any question
that these changes will take place. Mr. Horne said he is concerned that the staff not get
behind on this and that the Board have a chance to express itself.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the only thing that will resolve the problems on Rio Road
is a clover-leaf interchange. He asked how much more significant is a clover-leaf inter-
change. Mr. Horne said it is a very significant change.
Mr. Horne commented that other projects proposed in Phase I of the CATS Plan are Route
250 East (Free Bridge), improvements in the city on Long Street, and the six-laning of Rio
Road. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is any feeling that this is an attempt to respond to
pressure to improve Route 29 with the hope of diffusing some of it by doing this. Mr, Horne
said he talked with Mr. Roosevelt today and he suggested that if the Board wants to'talk to
someone it should speak directly to the Highway Commissioner or write a letter to the
District Engineer through Mr. Roosevelt. Mr. Fisher suggested that the Board pass a motion
directing the County Executive to communicate with the Highway Department at the level of the
District Engineer to find out whatever he can and provide a response by March 19.
Mr. Lindstrom commented that the MPO has heard nothing about these proposed changes.
Horne said the MPO Policy Board meets on March 19, at 9:00 A.M. Mr. Lindstrom suggested
that if there is any additional information available, the Board meet on March 18 at 4:00 P.M.
Agenda ItemNo. 19. Adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 11:11 P.M.