1986-05-21May 21, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
577
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
May 21, 1986, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T.
Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George~R~
St. John; and County Planner, John T. P. Horne. -.~?.:~'~--'~:-
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:34 P.M. by the Chairman,
Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mr. Way offered motion to approve Item 4.1 and to
accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as information. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the
motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
AYES:
NAYS:
Item 4.1. Request to Revise Resolution dated October 9, 1985, taking roads in
Fieldbrook Subdivision into the Secondary System; was received from the Engineering
Department. The following resolution adding deed book references for right-of-way easements
required by the Highway Department was adopted by the vote shown above.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and
is hereby requested to accept ~nto the Secondary System of Highways, subject
to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the
following roads in Fie~dbrook Subdivision:
BE IT FURTHER RES
Transportation be and
widths for Old Brook R
right-of-way widths fo
additions as recorded
Court of Albemarle Cou
637, Deed Book 419, pa
page 471.
Bixham Lane
Beginning at station 0+17, a point common with the centerline of Bixham
Lane and the edge of pavement of Old Brook Road, thence in a south-
easterly directiol 504.38 feet to station 5+21.38, the end of the
cul-de-sac of Bixi~am Lane.
Redington Lane
Beginning at statkon 0+17, a point common with the centerline of
Redington Lane an. the edge of pavement of Old Brook Road, thence in a
southeasterly direction 599.27 feet to station 6+16.27, the end of the
cul-de-sac of Redington Lane.
Old Brook Road
Beginning at stat.on 2+00, a point common with the centerline of Old
Brook Road and th~ centerline of Westmoreland Road, thence in a south-
westerly directiom 500 feet to station 7+00, the end of this dedica-
tion.
Westmoreland Road
Beginning at station 0+25, a point common with the centerline of
Westmoreland Road and the edge of pavement of Berwick Court, thence in
a southwesterly d.rection 175 feet to station 2+00, the end of this
dedication.
)LVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and
is hereby guaranteed fifty (50) feet right-of-way
~ad and Westmoreland Road and forty (40) feet
r Bixham Lane and Redington Lane along these requested
Dy plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit
~ty in Deed Book 732, page 335, Deed Book 794, page
~e 265, Deed Book 838, page 393, and Deed Book 839,
Item 4.2.
information.
A copy of the Planning Commission's minutes for May 7, 1986, was received as
Item 4.3. Letter dated May 7, 1986, from Woods, Rogers and Hazlegrove (law firm) and
notice from the State Corporation Commission re: Appalachian Power Company application
regarding Expedited Increase in Rates and Cogeneration Rate Proceeding; received as informa-
tion.
Item 4.4. Letter dated May 13, 1986, from Mr. E. T. Harris, Director, Air Traffic Plans
and Requirements Service, of the Federal Aviation Administration regarding request for radar
at the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport; received as information.
May 21, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(.Page 2)
"The Administrator has asked me to respond to your letter of April 10
enclosing a resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors requesting the
Federal Aviation Administration to establish an airport surveillance radar
(ASR) in the vicinity of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport.
Our Eastern regional office in Jamaica, New York, has operational jurisdic-
tion over the Charlottesville area. It has included Charlottesville as a
candidate for ASR establishment in its budgetary planning.
Howeuer, please keep in mind that the submission of a particular project or
progf~m does not ensure inclusion in a specific budget, since resources are
limited and consideration must be given to high-priority projects in the
National Airspace System."
Item 4.5. Memorandum 'from Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning, dated May 15, 1986, re:
Relocation of Intersection of Routes 678 and 250 West in Ivy; received as information.
"Enclosed you will find a map and Capital Improvements Program project
description sheet for a project to relocate the intersection of Route 678
and Route 250 West in Ivy. This roadway would provide access to the new Ivy
School. The purpose of the relocation would be to improve sight distance
and eliminate an awkward offset at this intersection. The intersection
would be relocated to an area just west of the motel in Ivy.
During the the development of the Planning Commission recommendation on the
Six Year Secondary Road Improvement Plan the staff was unaware that the
Engineering Department had been directed to pursue this project as a Capital
Improvements Project for County funding. When the Capital Improvements
Project was presented to the Planning Commission they recommended that this
project be included in the Six Year Secondary Road Improvement Plan. After
consultation with Mr. Roosevelt, it has been determined that construction of
this project would be approximately two and one-half to three years after
the adoption of the Six Year Plan. This would be approximately six months
to one year after the opening of the new Ivy School. In order for this
project to be constructed as soon as possible it would have to be placed as
a very high priority in the Six Year Plan and would tend to delay the series
of safety improvements which are proposed in the Planning Commissions'
recommendation.
At the Board meeting on May 14th there was some discussion of the possible
use of revenue sharing funds to match local funds for the construction of
this roadway. Staff has brought this matter to the Board's attention due to
the fact that they will not be seeing the Commission's recommendation on the
CIP until after adoption of the Six Year Plan. If you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to contact me."
Item 4.6. Copy of letter from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., dated May 16, 1986, to Mr. J. G.
Ripley, Director of Planning and Programming, Department of Highways & Transportation, re:
Use of Revenue Sharing Funds for Relocation of Intersection of Routes 678 and 250 West of
Ivy. Mr. Agnor states that the County of Albemarle has already committed its Federal Revenue
Sharing Funds through September 30, 1986. If Congress appropriates additional Revenue
Sharing Funds beyond September 30, 1986, the Board of Supervisors intends to designate
$132,250 of its allocation to the relocation of Route 678.
Agenda Item No. 5. Public Hearing: Amend Section 4-19 of the Albemarle County Code to
include the entire Camelot Subdivision as an area where dogs are not permitted to run at
large. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 6 and May 13, 1986.)
The public hearing was opened. Mrs. Beth King said her reasons remain the same for
bringing this request before the Board. Children have been bitten, pets attacked and
personal property destroyed. She thinks that the entire subdivision should be under the
leash law.
Mr. Jim Stevens, a resident of 509 Jester Lane, said the subdivision is heavily populate~
If there is not some relief from roaming animals, there will be more problems. He asks the
Board to extend the leash law throughout the entire subdivision.
Mrs. Judy Warner, a resident of 304 Camelot Drive, said she also is in support of the
request. More residents of the subdivision are in favor of the petition rather than opposed.
She aided Mrs. King in collecting signatures for the petition. With regard to objection of
the petition, one person did not want to be involved and two persons did not want to put
their dogs on a leash.
Mrs. Joyce Broughton, a resident of 100 Merlin Court, said it would be nice to take a
walk and not be attacked by a dog. She is in favor of the request.
There being no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowie said he supports the request and then offered motion to adopt the following
ordinance:
May 21, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
LPa_~e~
57c.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE II, DIVISION 2, SECTION 4-19(7)
OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that ChaDter 4, Article II, Division 2, Section 4-19(7) of the
Albemarle County'?~ode be amended and reenacted by the addition of the
following area as one of.those were dogs are prohibited from running at
large:
(7)
Camelot Subdivision as platted and put to record in the clerk's
office of~t~'county in Deed Book 450, pages 127 through 129, Deed
Book 545,'page'S8 and Deed Book 653, page 79.
Mrs. Cooke said she also is in support of the leash law and then seconded the motion.
She would like to see the Board entertain at some point a mandatory leash law for residential
subdivisions. She knows that it is ~mpossible to have a County-wide leash law because of the
character of the rural areas, but within the subdivisions where houses are close together and
pet owners do not take responsibility for their pets, it becomes extremely annoying. Mr.
Bowie said a leash law is logical in a subdivision where the people who live in the subdivi-
sion desire the leash law. He would have trouble supporting a County-wide leash law for
subdivisions unless the people asked for it. There being 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. 6. Public Hearing: six Year Highway Plan for 1986-1992 for Secondary
Road Improvements. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 6 and May 14, 1986.)
Mr. Fisher said the Highway Department, staff, Planning Commission and Board of Supervi-
sors have come to a consensus on this proposed priority list of highway projects presented
tonight for public hearing. He Shen asked Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, to
outline the proposed list and hoW th~ projects were developed.
Mr. Roosevelt said the Code of Virginia requires that the Six-Year Secondary Improvement
Plan be revised at least once every two years. In late 1985 he sent a proposal and criteria
to the Board for development of the Plan. Criteria that had to be met was adoption by the
Board of a priority list of projects considered to be valid improvements by the Highway
Department; the list should include enough improvements to make use of all of the funds
available during the next six years; the list to include enough projects to make'use of the
funds allocated through the gravel road fund law and enough projects to use federal funds
that are anticipated to be available for Albemarle County for its secondary system. The
Planning Department held a series of work sessions on the proposed list and made a recommen-
dation to the Board. The list includes 29 projects and/or improvements. Mr. Roosevelt then
summarized in priority order the projects, including the route, a description of the improve-
ment and the estimated cost of the total improvement.
Mr. Roosevelt commented that Priorities 92 through 98 (Rio Road, Barracks Road, Georg-
town Road, Old Lynchburg Road) are ~11 safety improvements that the Planning Commission felt
would be good improvements for a sm~ll amount of money and should be high priorities in the
Plan so as to get the improvements built within the next two years.
Mr. Roosevelt said the total estimated cost for the 29 improvements is $24 million. It
is anticipated over the next six years that the County will have between $6 million to $7
million available for improvements. The list contains sufficient projects to expend the
federal funds he anticipates will be available. He feels that each project on the list is a
valid improvement need.
Mr. Fisher asked how the right-of-way, relative to Priority ~16 (Route 643), was obtaine~
from the property owner who was not in cooperation. Mr. Roosevelt said the right-of-way has
not been obtained. He may have to reconsider a portion of the project and change the align-
ment. This project consists of approximately 40 parcels and the citizens have obtained
right-of-way from 39 property owners. At the time this project was recommended for inclusion
in the Six-Year Plan he had anticipated getting the remaining right-of-way. He has been
informed that the property owner wilI not donate the necessary right-of-way until he can be
assured that the narrow structure under~ the railroad at the west end of the project will be
improved. Mr. Roosevelt said he is unable to make that guarantee. He thinks the project can
proceed, but that it may just take longer to straighten out the right-of-way.
Mr. Horne commented that Mr. Agnor sent a letter to Mr. J. G. Ripley, Director of
Planning and Programming at the Highway Department, asking Mr. Ripley to allocate approxi-
mately one-half of the anticipated cost for relocation of Route 678, which is approximately
$132,000. Route 678 is proposed fo~ use of Revenue Sharing Funds. If Revenue Sharing Funds
are to be used for relocation of Route 678, there is a slight change in the County's share of
the estimated cost. Mr. Michael Armm, Director of Engineering, said after reevaluating
relocation of Route 678, the staff ~iscovered that right-of-way acquisition and any addition-
al engineering costs would have to Come from the County's share. Thus the County's share is
closer to $150,000 rather than $132,000. Mr. Horne commented that at one time this project
was proposed to be in the Six-Year Rlan. Mr. Horne then presented the following addendum to
the staff report on the Six Year SeCondary Road Improvement Plan:
"This report is to clarify previous Board of Supervisors' actions on two
road zmprovement pro3ects. ~he two proj.ects are the reconstruction of
portions of Hydraulic and RiO Roads. In reviewing Board of Supervisors
minutes from previous meetings it appears that the discussion of these
projects has been divided into at least two separate projects. At the Board
580
May 21, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
( ~a~a_4 )
of Supervisors work session on the 1985-1991 Six Year Secondary Road Improve-
ment Plan the Board voted to go to advertisement for public hearing of the
Six Year Plan with the deletion of two projects that were in the Planning
Commission's recommended list of projects. The first was the reconstruction
and improvement of Hydraulic Road from Whitewood to the Rio Road intersec-
tion and the second was the reconstruction and improvement of Ri~.Road from
Route 29 to Hydraulic Road. These were listed as priorities 924 and 927 on
the Planning Commission's recommended priority list.
Hydraulic Road - from Whitewood to Rio Road - On February 11, 1981, after a
long series of meetings from 1978 to 1981 at which various options were
discussed, the Board of Supervisors authorized construction of the current
improvements on Hydraulic Road. During most of the discussions of this
project it was anticipated that the improvements would extend from Route 29
to Rio Road. By the late 1970's and early 1980's, it was apparent that
construction costs were accelerating to such an extent that it was important
for the Board of Supervisors to authorize construction of some project in
order to utilize funds that were rapidly being eroded by inflation. It
became apparent that there were not going to be sufficient funds to do the
entire project and after much discussions which were largely centered around
the cost factors involved in the project, the Board deleted the improvements
from Whitewood to Rio from the project. The Board did, however, authorize
the reconstruction of the Rio-Hydraulic intersection.
The purpose of the existing proposed project by the Planning Commission
would be to fund and construct the portions of Hydraulic Road which were
deleted from the above project. In 1984 average daily traffic on this
section of roadway was between 14,000 and 16,000 vehicles making it one of
the most heavily traveled secondary roads in the County. The road provides
a major through connector from the Earlysville area to the urban area as
well as access to major population concentrations in Neighborhood One.
During previous discussions with the Highway Department, the Board has made
it quite clear that there would be special erosion and sedimentation control
needs for any project which could potentially drain into the watershed of
the reservoir and the Highway Department has acknowledged the need for these
special measures should construction take place within the watershed.
It appears that there is some concern among various Board members that
improvement of this roadway would somehow place pressure on the Board of
Supervisors to allow expansion of urban development beyond Hydraulic Road to
the west which would be outside the current boundaries of the urbanized
area. While staff recognizes that some minor additional pressure could be
attempted to be placed on the County to expand urban development, road
improvements do not in and of themselves generate undue pressure. The Board
of Supervisors has legislative authority to approve and deny rezoning and
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and it is the staff's opinion that this
authority is sufficient to maintain the integrity of the urban district
boundary at any location where it is the clear consensus of the Board of
Supervisors that that boundary should be maintained.
Rio Road - From Route 29 to Hydraulic - On January 14, 1981, the Board of
Supervisors endorsed reconstruction of this section of roadway with most
discussion during that period centering on pedestrian improvements along the
roadway. The staff is unaware of any subsequent action by the Board of
Supervisors rescinding that action. On October 11, 1983, Mr. Tucker
responded to a Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation request
for comments on the roadway project and has stated that the project was
consistent with County plans. Virginia Department of Highways and Transpor-
tation has in fact developed preliminary working drawings for reconstruction
of this section of roadway.
(The 1984 average daily traffic on this section of Rio Road was 7,754 to
8,923). From Route 29 to SPCA Road, Rio Road is fully surrounded by the
growth area. From SPCA ROad to the Hydraulic Road, Rio Road provides access
to major population concentrations in Neighborhood One. As with the Hydrau-
lic Road project, the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has
been made aware of the need for special measures to ensure protection of the
watershed and has acknowledged in writing the need for these measures.
Again, the Board of Supervisors has absolute legislative authority to
approve and deny changes to the Comprehensive Plan or rezoning in this area
and it is the staff's opinion that improvement of this roadway will not
place undue pressure on the Board of Supervisors to expand the urban dis-
trict boundaries.
In summary, it is the staff's recommendation that the Board of Supervisors
place in the Six Year Secondary Road Improvement Plan projects for the
improvement of Hydraulic Road from Whitewood to Rio Road and the improvement
of Rio Road from Route 29 to Hydraulic Road, as the ~24 and 927 priority
projects respectively. Staff would point out that if these projects were
placed at these locations in the priority list, funding would not be avail-
able in this six year cycle and adequate time for detailed discussions of
protective measures with reference to the watershed could be discussed with
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation."
The public hearing was opened.
May 21, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)'~"
__ ~Pa~qe 5 )
58 !._
Ms. Jackie Morris, a resident of Route 622, said the residents have obtained all the
necessary right-of-way for pavement of the road. There' has been a lot of activity going on
to the road within the last couple of months and she would like to know the time frame for
pavement of the road. Mr. Way responded that paving of Route 622 is scheduled to begin
within the coming year. Ms. Morris asked if the bridge improvement on Route 729 includes
widening the bridge to two lanes. Mr. Roosevelt replied yes.
Col. John Wolfe, a resident of Route 791, said that Route 791 is a tiny road, approxi-
mately one-half mile long. He questions the criteria used for putting gravel roads in the
Six-Year Plan. The only criteria apparent to him is the receipt of necessary right-of-way
along the proposed improvement. He does not feel that is sufficient criteria and at times
can be considerably unfair. For example, the residents struggled for the last four years and
finally succeeded in getting the necessary right-of-way on Route 791. Route 791 leads into
Route 688 just before it gets to the Miller School Road, which is approximately 200 yards.
The residents of Route 791 have been unable to get the necessary right-of-way from either of
the two residents on Route 688. He has been informed by Mr. Roosevelt that until they get
all of the right-of-way, Route 791 cannot be included on the priority list, which means the
gravel road cannot be improved. There are approximately 50 residences on this one-half mile
of gravel road. He feels there should be some other criteria such as the traffic on the
road, the size and cost of the project, and safety factors used for determining gravel road
improvements. The residents have offered to pay the two people at the end of the road twice
the value of their right-of-way, but they have refused. The only way he sees to break this
block is for the State to use its powers of eminent domain. The 50 residents are willing to
reimburse the State for the fair cost of that land if it is condemned. He can understand
that there are gravel roads in the County that are a higher priority than this road, but this
is the residents last recourse. He thinks that the residents have done all that they can be
expected to do. He asks for any suggestions to alleviate this problem.
There being no one else present who wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Roosevelt to comment on Col. Wolfe's statements. Mr. Roosevelt
said in 1979 he informed the Board that there were 140 miles of roadway that met the Highway
Department's minimum criteria for paved roads. Today there are 160 miles of gravel roads in
the county that meet that criteria. In 1979 he also told the Board that it must set some
guidelines for improving those roads. He then recommended the following three criteria all
of which the Board adopted: (1) first priority would be given to those projects where the
right-of-way was already available; (2) second priority would be given to those gravel roads
which were in the urban or village areas; and (3) third priority would be given to those
roads in the Plan in order by traffic count. As a result of the criteria, the backlog of
roads where right-of-way was donated grew tremendously and every dollar available for gravel
road improvements for the next six years was accounted for. Therefore only roads which met
the first criteria were included on the list. If at this time the Board wants to change the
criteria it can do so. He has not mentioned the criteria prior to this time because the
Planning Department has recommended that it be changed. He supports the current criteria and
feels the plan has been working and allows the people who have gone out and done the leg work
to have access to those funds. He does not think that based on the funds that are available
that the Board has to decide whether or not to change the criteria tonight, but it does need
consideration by the Board in the next few months.
Mr. Roosevelt said he has also attempted to communicate with the two property owners but
to no avail. If the Board wishes to pursue this further, it then has the ability to purchase
right-of-way and the Highway Department could use its power of eminent domain for condemna-
tion. Before condemnation, the Department must first prepare surveys and plans of the
properties involved, prepare an estimate of the cost for the right-of-way desired, make an
offer to the property owners based on the estimate, and if the offer is refused file for
condemnation. Prior to making an offer to the property owners, the Department must hold a
public hearing and allow all citizens an opportunity to voice their concern or support for
the project, and receive approval from the Highway Commission on the plans for purchase of
the right,of-way. All of the above mentioned costs must be taken into consideration as costs
for the project, not just the cost of purchasing the land. Therefore, the property owners
who are willing to pay for the purchase of the land must also consider the other costs which
could be expensive. It is his understanding that the Board has the authority to use secon-
dary funds to purchase right-of-way. He would like to caution that if the Board decides to
use its funds to purchase right-of-way for gravel road improvements, there will probably be
no more donations and the Board would have to start paying for all right-of-way.
Mr. Way asked how the citizens would donate the money for purchase of the right-of-way.
Mr. St. John said an account could be set up in the names of citizens. Mr. Way commented
that if right-of-way was purchased, it would continue to put pressure on citizens to donate
land. Mr. Roosevelt said that may be true, but the important point he wants to make is that
the cost of the property could be considerably less than the costs involved in condemnation.
The citizens must pay those costs up front. Mr. Fisher said that in a situation where the
property owners are willing to pay the costs which are not borne bY the public at large, the
property owners should be given an opportunity to see if it would work. He then asked other
Board members if they felt this should be pursued further.
Mr. Lindstrom said he has no problem with this as long as the expenses entailed are
borne by other than the Secondary Road Fund and the County. He has no problem if some
persons are willing to pay the bill, but he agrees with Mr. Roosevelt that the Board should
not change its criteria and start using its funds to acquire right-of-way.~
Mr. Bowie asked if the Highway Department's staff would have to be increased if the
County decided to start acquiring right-of-ways. Mr. Roosevelt responded an additional two
full-time people would have to be hired.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Roosevelt for an estimate of the costs to the property owners for
going through this process. Mr. Roosevelt said he has no idea, b~t if the Board wants to
embark on this, it could add this road or any other to the Plan, but far enough down in the
582
May 21, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Paqe 6)
Plan to where no money would be spent on it at this time. He then would get someone more
knowledgeable to give him an estimate of the costs involved to do all of the necessary work.
Mr. Henley said he thinks that before doing anything, the Board needs to make sure the
citizens are going to pay the costs. Mr. Roosevelt said if the road was in the Plan and he
was directed to provide an estimate, he would provide it to the Board and then the citizens
would have the opportunity to decide if they wanted to proceed further. If the response is
negative after receiving the estimate, then at the next Six Year Plan hearing, the project
could be deleted from the list. If the response is to proceed, then the Highway Department
would require the Board to guarantee the money for the project. Any agreements would be
between the County and the property owners, such as putting money in an escrow account in the
County's name.
Mr. Fisher said he would like to proceed with this and suggested adding Route 791 to the
Six Year Plan. Mr. Bowie said there are several roads in his district where there are one or
two people who will not donate right-of-way and he can see this blossoming into a full sized
business in keeping track of the one person holdout. Additionally if he owned the only piece
of land that was blocking pavement of a road, he would holdout and request payment. He can
see a danger in the system of encouraging people not to donate land whether or not going
through the eminent domain process.
Mr. Way said he has no objection to the staff looking into the situation.
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission reviewed a long list of gravel roads and essen-
tially endorsed a somewhat broader set of criteria than what now is being used. The Commis-
sion basically tried to look at some of the functional aspects of the roadway system in the
rural areas and tried to see if there are roads that if they were paved would function as
either collectors or connectors between two population concentrations that would get people
to and from some of the growth areas. The Commission intentionally did not choose to use the
criteria that is now in use. The reason none of those roads are in the actual plan is that
after the Commission reviewed all of the other projects that needed to be done, it felt that
during this six year period, the County should not spend any more funds than the minimum it
had to and the minimum funds were needed for all of the projects where right-of-way had been
acquired. The Commission is in the process of proposing to the Board a different set of
criteria. For information, Route 791 did not appear on the list being considered by the
Commission. This road is not a connector to anything, but a dead-end road.
Mr. Lindstrom said he has no problem with asking the staff to see if a mechanism can be
developed. He thinks the concern Mr. Bowie raised is a valid one, but does not know how the
Board should deal with it. He would rather not add any roads to the Six Year Plan until
there is a mechanism worked out.
Mrs. Cooke said she agrees with Mr. Bowie's theory. She has a hard time with paying a
couple of holdouts when everyone else has donated the right-of-way. If the Board starts
paying, it will encourage the process more and more. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks it is an
issue for the people that live on a particular road and how they are going to deal with the
situation. If the local residents find it advantageous to pay for the acquisition of right-
of-way to have the road paved, he thinks there should be a mechanism available for them to do
that. If the residents do not want to take on the expense, then so be it. He does not feel
strongly about the situation one way or the other and is willing to let the residents on the
road deal with the problem in their own way. He is not willing to put any extra effort into
gaining the remaining right-of-way. Col. Wolfe interrupted and said in his opinion, in this
particular case, just the threat of condemnation will cause the two holdouts to donate the
right-of-way. Again, the residents are willing to put up the costs.
Mr. Bowie said he thinks staff should take a look at the situation. Mr. Lindstrom said
he agrees; he does not think the Board is committing itself to anything by asking the Plan-
ning staff and County Attorney's office to see if they come up with some mechanism for the
Board to look at. Mr. Fisher then requested the staff to put together a review of how this
might be done, problems that it sees or other related issues that might fall into the same
kind of program and provide a response to the Board within a month or two.
Mr. Way asked the reasons for deleting the projects, Hydraulic Road from Whitewood Road
to Rio Road, and Rio Road from Route 29 to Hydraulic Road, from the Six Year Plan. Mr. Horne
said according to research he does not think the Board deleted Rio Road from Route 29 to
Hydraulic Road. Hydraulic Road from Whitewood Road to Rio Road was deleted largely due to
the costs involved. Mr. Lindstrom said he was present during the discussions of the two
sections of road and feels strongly about the reasons for deletion. He is concerned that if
these roads are improved, it will begin the process of creating a bypass that essentially
would follow Rio Road/Hydraulic Road, with the next logical step being Georgetown Road and
beyond that to Canterbury Hills. He could never support something like that which would
substantially change the character of the area. The Georgetown Road area is an established
residential road with single-family residences on one side and on the other side there are
also a number of residential developments. Secondly, construction, regardless of any assur-
ances the Board has, would be partially in the watershed and is one of the main reasons the
Board has opposed a western bypass. He also thinks that it is difficult to ignore the fact
that the Board has tried to structure its jurisdictional areas for utilities in a way to
avoid providing a stimulus for growth and he thinks the highways are as equally likely to
stimulate growth. The County already has $18 million more in road projects than can possibly
be funded in the next six years. Adding more dollars to that does not make a lot of sense in
his mind particularly when there are drawbacks to the project and there are other road
projects which are critical to the implementation of the current Comprehensive Plan. There
are a number of roads in the southern urban area which are already being confronted by
substantial pressure for development which the Board has not taken into consideration. He
thinks the road projects in that area would be consistent with and would further the recom-
mendations in the Comprehensive Plan. Not only are these road improvements not in further-
ance of the Plan, but are also in conflict with the Plan.
May 21, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
PaLla .l)
Mrs. Cooke said she can see the reasons for Mr. Lindstrom's statements, but the Rio Road
area can barely handle all that has taken place. She does not know if improvements would
encourage any more traffic, but, as it is, the road is inadequate and dangerous. Mr. Lindstro
said he is not an expert, but there are other roads in the County that are more dangerous and
more critical to the County's planning and development than that particular stretch of road.
He feels that the only critical safety hazard on the road is at the intersection of Woodburn
Road. There must be a provision for better roads in the southern area where there is planned
growth and the roads are substantially critical needs.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion, seconded by Mr. Way, to adopt the following Six Year
Highway Plan as presented:
Priority Road Description
Estimated Cost
1 Route 743 From Route 29 to Route 1455; $3,500,000
Length: 1.10 Mile;
Four-lane Curb and Gutter.
2 Route 631 At intersection with Route 659; 50,000
Improve sight distance and left
turn lane.
3 Route 631
At intersection with Agnese
Street; Improve sight distance.
4 Route 654 At intersection with Route 656; 40,000
Construct right turn lane.
5 Route 631 At intersection with Greenbrier 40,000
Drive; Construct left turn lane.
6 Route 631
At intersection with Route 768; 100,000
Construct left and right turn lanes.
7 Route 656
From Route 654 to Route 743; 120,000
Construct left and right turn lanes.
8 Route 631 From Route 781 to Route 708; 100,000
(Old Lynchburg Widen two bridges and widen
Road) shoulders.
9 Route 729 Approaches to bridge at Buck 315,000
Island Creek; Length: 0.33 Mile.
9 Route 729 Bridge over Buck Island Creek. 420,000
10 Route 678 Approaches to bridge over Mechum 145,000
River; Length: 0.30 Mile.
10 Route 678 Bridge over Mechum River. 454,077
11 Route 671 From Route 609 to Route 668 East; 280,000
Length: 1.00 Mile; Grade, drain,
stabilize, and new S. T.
12 Route 618 From Route 729 to Route 620; 400,000
Length:~ 2.75 Mile; Grade, drain,
stabilize, and new S. T.
13 Route 640 From Route 20 to 1.0 Mile East; 130,000
Length:! 1.00 Mile; Grade, drain,
stabilize, and new S. T.
14 Route 664 From Route 064 to Route 743; 435,000
Length: 1.80 Mile; Grade, drain,
stabilize, and new S. T.
15 Route 622 From ROute 618 to Fluvanna County 300,000
Line; Length: 1.50 Mile; Grade,
drain, stabilize, and new S. T.
16 Route 643 From Route 649 to 1.00 Mile West; 260,000
Length:i 1.00 Mile; Grade, drain,
stabilize and new S. T.
17 Route 686 From ROute 600 to Louisa County 300,000
Line; Length: 1.30 Mile; Grade,
Drain, Stabilize and new S. T.
18 Route 727 From ROute 627 to Route 795; 1,100,000
Length:i 2.90 Miles; Grade, drain,
stabilize, and new S. T.
19 Route 652 From 0.6 Mile Route 631 North to 250,000
0.4 Mile Route 1441 South;
Length: 0.22 Miles; Grade, drain,
stabilize, and new S. T.
584
May 21, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8 k
20
County-Wide
County-wide pipe installations,
new signs, preliminary eng'g and
seeding.
480,000
21
Route 625
Operation of Hatton Ferry.
60,000
22
Route 631
(Meadow Creek
Parkway)
From the North City Line of
Charlottesville to the South
Rivanna River; Length: 1.0 Mile;
Four lanes on new alignment.
5,350,000
22
Route 631
(Meadow Creek
Parkway)
Bridge over Meadow Creek.
500,000
23
Route 671
Approaches to bridge at Moorman
River at Millington.
190,000
23
Route 671
Bridge over Moorman River.
450,000
24
Route 631
(Fifth Street
Extended)
From Route 1103 to 1.0 Mile 4,500,000
South Route 780; Length: 1,60 Mile;
Widen alOng a new alignment.
25 Route 631 From 0.30 Mile East Route 29 to 1,560,000
Route 650; Widen to four-lane
divided on existing right-of-way.
26 Route 601 Bridge over Buck Mountain Creek. 370,000
27 Route 777 From Orange County Line to Dead 450,000
End; Length: 1.55 Miles; Grade,
drain, stabilize and new S. T.
28 Route 693 From route 635 to Route 695; 350,000
Length: 1.10 Miles; Grade, drain
stabilize and new S. T.
29 Route 660 Bridge over South Fork Rivanna 910,000
River.
TOTAL $23,929,077
Mr. Roosevelt said if the Board wants Route 678 to be considered for partial funding by
the Highway Department through use of Revenue Sharing funds, then the road should be added to
the Plan. The location of the road in the Plan will determine how it is handled. Mr. Fisher
said his understanding is that all of the Revenue Sharing funds have been spent through this
fiscal year. Mr. Roosevelt said he had an opportunity to speak with the Secondary Roads
Division and was informed that the section of the Code tied to Revenue Sharing is a means for
the Department to determine the maximum amount of its participation. The County can use any
funds it has available except Highway funds. If the Board intends to finance at least half
of the roadway construction costs, then the road should be added to the end of the Plan. Mr.
Lindstrom said it seems to him that the consensus was to do the road as soon as possible.
Mr. Roosevelt said if Route 678 were added as a high priority in the road plan, it would'push
back all of the other roads in the Plan. Mr. Fisher commented that this project is related
to the new Meriwether Lewis Replacement School and was to coincide with the new school. Mr.
Roosevelt said if the project is done through Highway Department planning he cannot guarantee
that the road will be open by September of next year. He suggests that the County do the
work and the Highway Department reimburse the County. He also suggests that the Board put
the project at the end of the Plan so that the Plan would not have to come back and be
amended. If the road is at the end of the Plan, it could be done on whatever schedule the
Board desires. Mr. Lindstrom then amended his motion to include Route 678 at the end of the
priority list as No. 30 with the understanding that the Board can direct when the road will
be done. Mr. Way accepted the amendment to the motion.
Mrs. Cooke said personally, she is not sure she is ready to make a decision tonight on
adoption of the Plan. She has some reservations about a couple of comments and ideas about
roads discussed here tonight. If the Board has to vote she might have to abstain simply
because she has some real strong feelings about the Hydraulic Road/Rock Store area. She
needs to think about that some more. Mr. Lindstrom said if the Board is going to look at
that area, he thinks it should look at all of the roads in the urban area that are not
capable of handling the growth that is slated for the area. He does not think that improve-
ment is consistent with County planning and that the Board should be sure it does not have
more critical secondary road needs in the urban area.
Mrs. Cooke said while the improvement may not be consistent with planning she thinks
what has happened in the area has dictated necessary improvements. It is her opinion that
the road has already become a bypass. Again the road is dangerous and she feels it needs
further consideration. Mr. Lindstrom said he is willing to consider the road, but also with
other road needs in the urban area. He does not want to create a bypass through the
Charlottesville and Jack Jouett District that will impact a lot of residences.
Mr. Bowie said he will support the motion. He does not see why the road was taken out
of the Plan, however there are four times the number of projects in the Plan than can possi-
bly be funded and he thinks everyone must occasionally accept roads through areas that are
not wanted. He has no problem with bringing the road back up to be added at a later time.
He thinks the project is a legitimate solution to get some traffic off Route 29.
May 21, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mrs. Cooke said the area is not totally residential. The commercial development that
has taken place in that area has changed its character tremendously. She is not willing to
delete the road from all consideration. She thinks Mr. Bowie has a viable suggestion that
the Board review the road again. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS[ None.
ABSTAINING: Mrs. Cooke.
(The Board recessed at 9:10 P.M. and then reconvened at 9:19 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-86-09. VEPCO. To allow for installation of a 160-foot communi-
cations pole on property located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Interstate
64 and Route 631 (Fifth Street). Tax Map 76, Parcel 55. Zoned HC. Scottsville District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 6 and May 13, 1986.)
Mr. Horne noted that the applicant has requested deferral until June 4, 1986.
Mr. Way offered motion to defer SP-86-09 until June 4, 1986. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the
motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-85-35. River Heights. Rezone 12.8 acres from R-15 to HC, and
one acre to CO. Located on west side of Route 29 North (deferred from March 19, 1986).
Mr. Horne said to reiterate the staff report presented to the Board on March 19, this is
a petition by River Heights Associates to rezone 13.8 acres from R-15 to HC (12.8 acres) and
CO ( one acre). The property is located adjacent to the entrance of Hilton Heights Road at
the Hilton Hotel. The rezoning is accompanied by proffers.
To brief the Board on a proposed section of roadway that is integral to the proffer,
there is a proposed connector roadway that would go from the southern end of Rio Road at
Berkmar and would connect into the northern end of Hilton Heights Drive, which basically
would parallel Route 29 North. In an attempt to advise the Planning Commission and Board as
to the overall feasibility of the roadway, the staff was authorized to engage some engineer-
ing assistance to come up with an alignment for the roadway. The preliminary engineering
work was done and the proposal is an urban cross section, curb and gutter, three-lanes, and
40 feet from curb-to-curb roadway. As part of the network there also is proposed two connec-
tors, one near the Carrsbrook entrance and the other at the Woodbrook crossover. Based on
this preliminary engineering it was the staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission
that this was a feasible roadway and could be constructed at little expense to the County.
The proposed roadway is not to function as a bypass or as an alternate to Route 29, but is an
attempt to provide alternate means of access to some areas that will be developed in the
future. As the Board is aware, there is currently a major area of commercially zoned land
north of Rio Road all the way to the Hilton site. Considering that there is only a small
amount of that land presently developed, the staff is attempting to build in a mechanism for
alternate access to those commercial properties prior to their being developed. Access to
Route 29 will not be precluded, but most access has already been restricted by proffers.
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, by a vote of 5/2 recommended that the Board
advertise for public hearing to put this roadway in the Comprehensive Plan as one of the
recommended roadways. At that time there was considerable discussion at the Planning Commis-
sion meeting on two items with respect to the proposed roadway. The first concern was the
potential impact, if this roadway were to be constructed, on the areas between the roadway
and Woodburn Road and the danger of accelerating development of those areas or placing
pressure on the Board to rezone the area to a higher category of use. The area is largely
zoned R-6 and R-4 currently. The other concern of the Commission was the necessity on some
of the parcels for the expenditure of public funds. There most likely would have to be some
commitment at some time by the Board to fund sections of roadway for some of the parcels.
Mr. Horne then reviewed the staff report and briefed the Board on the major issues as
being: (1) the County is currently over-zoned with general commercial acreage recommended or
projected in this neighborhood of the Comprehensive Plan; and (2) this would be first proper~
in the area that would be zoned commercial all the way back to Woodburn Road.
Mr. Horne said during subdivision approval of this property early in 1980, a condition
of the subdivision approval was that there would be no access to Woodburn Road. The condi-
tion would still be in effect if the rezoning is approved. Mr. Horne then summarized the
following revised proffer submitted by the applicant:
"May 9, 1986
County of Albemarle
Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Members of the Board:
We, River Heights Associates, hereby make the following proffers in connec-
tion with the rezoning of a portion of the property under ZMA-85-35:
May 21, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Paqe 10)
We will construct a road to Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation .standard within a 50 foot right-of-way in the
general location shown on the map entitled 'Parallel Roadway -
Route 29 North Albemarle County, Virginia', prepared by Roudabush,
Greene and Gale, revised May 7, 1986.
At the time of approval of any site plan that would affect the location of
such road, the county will designate the exact location of such road or item
91 of the proffer will be null and void.
Total vehicle trips will not exceed 16,767 V.P.D.
breakdown as per the attached plan is:
The tentative
Parcel A 1,230
Parcel B 3,150
Parcel C 1,100
Parcel D 8,082
Parcel E 3,200
The proffer would allow for adjustment'within the framework of these numbers
dependant upon final site plan approval. The numbers may also be adjuSted
by lighter density use on the various areas.
Sincerely,
RIVER HEIGHTS ASSOCIATES
By: (SIGNED) Wendell W. Wood, General Partner
Mr. Horne said the proffer has been reviewed by the County Attorney. The staff is
recommending approval, feels that the proffer overcomes issues concerning traffic generation
and that the value of the proposed roadway outweighs disadvantages of the rezoning. The
Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of the rezoning request.
Mr. Way asked if the Commission has seen the revised proffer. Mr. Horne responded no.
Mr. Lindstrom asked the reasons for the Commission's objection. Mr. Horne said the Commis-
sion was concerned with additional high density commercial acreage on Route 29 North, opposed
the commercial zoning all the way to Woodburn Road and did not feel, as the staff does, that
the proffers outweigh the disadvantages. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the proposed parallel road
concept was acted on by the Commission after the application. Mr. Horne replied yes.
Mrs. Cooke asked what has changed since the Commission recommended denial. Mr. Horne
said planning for the parallel road concept has advanced further. At the time this applica-
tion was before the Commission, there was no real concept of whether the roadway was even
feasible. He cannot state though that if the Commission had the parallel road design before
it that its opinion on the application would have changed. Again the Commission's level of
discussion was not centered totally around the roadway.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Wendell Wood, the applicant, said he has nothing
further to add. His comments are the same as those stated at the March 19 meeting. He would
like to reiterate that he has cooperated fully with the staff. By limiting access onto Route
29, he feels that there has been demonstrated a willingness and ability to attempt to resolve
some of the problems on Route 29. After listening to the discussion on the Six Year Plan
tonight, it seems that this road is a way to achieve a road for the County at no expense to
the County. He feels that this proposal is the same as other proposals in the area and a
better plan than having strip zoning on Route 29.
Mr. Fisher asked the zoning of the property behind the Hilton Hotel. Mr. Wood responded
R-15. Mr. Fisher stated that the Board has received a letter from the President of the
Berkeley Community Association who is concerned about the tie-in with this road across from
Rio Road. The letter is not requesting denial, but asks that the Board continue to support
the integrity of existing neighborhoods while trying to solve the traffic problems on Route
29 North.
There being no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Horne to read the Statement of Intent from the Zoning Ordinance for
Highway Commercial zoning. Mr. Horne so read. Mr. Fisher said the beginning of the state-
ment seems to indicate that allowing highway commercial zoning off of a parcel that is
separated from a major highway is not contemplated by that zoning. Mr. Horne said that is
the general intent of most HC districts. It is the intent here that HC be oriented to
highway locations rather than central business concentrations. Mr. Fisher said it depends on
your definition of a central business district. This area is becoming a quasi central
business zoning for that whole area. Mr. Fisher asked if the Comprehensive Plan contemplates
any commercial zoning adjacent to Woodburn Road. Mr. Horne replied no.
Mrs. Cooke asked what impact this road would have on the Berkeley Subdivision as a
through road. Mr. Horne said the road as planned now would be a connection to Berkmar. To
the south the road would connect to Commonwealth. The staff does not view the road as an
access for through traffic to Route 29. The road is anticipated to serve as through traffic
for the businesses instead of using Route 29.
Mr. Fisher said his interpretation of ~1 in the proffer and the map to which it refers
is that the applicant will build the entire road. Mr. St. John said it could be interpreted
that way, but he doubts if that is the intent. Mr. Fisher asked about the legal ramification~
of approving this rezoning considering that it does not appear to be in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan. Mr. St. John said although the Comprehensive Plan is considerably
explicit, it is a general guide and he does not believe this is enough of a deviation from
May 21, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Pae~ge,~
587
the Plan that it could be an issue in the future. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Board would
jeopardize its ability to deny a rezoning request for commercial zoning adjacent to this on
Woodburn Road. Mr. St. John responded no. He believes this rezoning would be creating an
even depth of commercial off of Route 29 and the applicant has proffered to limit access on
Woodburn Road.
Mr. Fisher asked, if this is approved, how much depth would be added to the commercial
area. Mr. Horne replied approximately 600 to 700 additional feet in depth to what exists
there now. Mr. St. John said in addition it is not realistic or practical from a planning
standpoint to have little fingers of residential areas that stick down between two commercial
areas.
Mr. Way said even though this rezoning is a deviation from the Plan, it is not that much
different from what is already there. There will be additional commercial along Route 29 and
this will open it up to a larger area that can be developed rather than having several small
areas along the highway. In addition this is a way for the County to get that section of
connector road built. He personally thinks that the plan makes good sense and he is inclined
to support it. He does agree with Mr. Fisher concerning 91 in the proffer and thinks that it
should be clarified to state its real intent.
Mr. Fisher said if the Board does this, in the future it probably will rezone everything
to Woodburn Road as commercial. Mr. Way commented that again this is proffered so that there
will not be any access onto Woodburn Road. Mr. Lindstrom asked for a clarification of that
statement as it is not a proffered statement. Mr. Horne said during subdivision approval of
the property a condition on the subdivision plat was that there be no access to Woodburn
Road. Although it was not a proffer, that subdivision plat stands no matter what the zoning.
Mr. Bowie commented that is the key to keeping commercial off Woodburn Road.
Mrs. Cooke said this property is in her district and she feels as Mr. Way doeS. The
area has become commercial and this seems like a nicer and neater way of developing the
property. Mrs. Cooke then offered motion that ZMA-85-35, River Heights, be rezoned as
follows: 12.8 acres from R-15 to HC and one acre to CO, with proffer as stated and to be
clarified with respect to the road. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher asked Mr.
Wood to return to the microphone and state whether he has an amendment to ~1 of his proffer.
Mr. Wendell Wood said the proffer was meant to be on lands that the applicant controls and
owns. Basically it is lands up to the Jim Price property line. He has no problem with
proffering whatever wording that may take. He also would be willing to proffer that there
would be no access on Woodburn Road.. It was then suggested by Mr. Lindstrom that Mr. Wood
indicate by marking on the map the section he plans to build, initial it and that area be
referred to in the proffer. Mr. St. John suggested that the points be labeled Point A and
Point B and that the language in the proffer read "from Point A to Point B". Mr, Fisher read
the language in the proffer to be as follows: "1. We will construct a road from Point A to
Point B, to Virginia ..." Mr. Wood again verbally proffered that there would be no access
from the rezoned property to WOodburn Road. Mrs. Cooke accepted those changes, including the
third proffer as follows: "3. There will be no connection to Woodburn Road." in her motion.
Mr. Bowie, as seconder, agreed to the changes.
Mr. Fisher said he thinks the Comprehensive Plan is correct in stating that there is
excessive commercial zoning in the Route 29 North area. He thinks it is difficult for him to
interpret this rezoning as being in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, which does not
indicate extension of commercial from existing areas along Route 29. He further does not
think it is the intent of the highway commercial zoning to be created off of a major highway.
All of those concerns together lead him to think there has been too much emphasis placed on
trying to get a piece of a road built and that the staff has been quite diligent in reviewing
the application because of a desire to get a road built. He cannot support that type "horse
trading". He did support the Hilton Hotel rezoning in order to give the additional depth to
the land to build the hotel because he felt that was a good move, but he does not think this
rezoning meets the Comprehensive Plan in any fashion.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 9. ZTA-86-1. Amend Section 4.6.6 of the Zoning Ordinance as it relates
to lot access requirements. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 6 and May 13, 1986.)
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report:
"ZTA-86-01: On March 25, 1986, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution
of intent to amend Section 4.6.6 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance as
it relates to lot access.
Origin: Planning staff.
Public Purpose: Clarification of ordinance text.
This amendment is of a 'housekeeping' nature, intended to clarify language
of the zoning ordinance text. Staff recommends the following amendment:
4.6.6
LOT ACCESS REQUIREMENTS
No structure requiring a building permit shall be erected
upon any lot which does not have frontage on a public or
private road as specified in the
spee~ea~y-~e~e~-~ subdivision regulations, a~ except
for lots lacking such frontage on the date of the adoption of
this ordinance."
588
May 21, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page'12)
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed change on May 6 and unani-
mously recommended approval.
There being no questions for Mr. Horne, the public hearing was opened.
one from the public present to speak, the public hearing was closed.
There being no
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to adopt the following
ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
SECTION 4.6.6 OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY
ZONING ORDINANCE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Section 4.6.6 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance is
hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows:
4.6.6
LOT ACCESS REQUIREMENTS
No structure requiring a building permit shall be erected
upon any lot which does not have frontage on a public or
private road as specified in the subdivision regulations,
except for lots lacking such frontage on the date of the
adoption of this ordinance.
Mr. Henley asked what type of private road would be involved. Mr. Horne said the
various levels of private roads in the Subdivision Ordinance are according to the number of
lots that front on those roads. The reference to private roads in this section is general
and refers to any private road.
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. STA-86-1. Amend Chapter 18 "Subdivision of Land", of the Code of
Albemarle concerning the following: content of plats; requirements for "family divisions";
private road requirements for family divisions and divisions involving fewer than three lots;
frontage requirements; approval procedures. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 6 and
May 13, 1986.)
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report:
"STA-86-01: On March 25, 1986, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution
of intent to amend Chapter 18, Subdivision of Land, of the Code of Albemarle
County as it relates to:
Content of plats
Requirements for 'family divisions'
Private road requirements for family divisions and
divisions involving fewer than three lots
Frontage requirements
Approval procedures
Origin: Planning staff; Real Estate staff.
Public Purpose: Amendments related to exempt plats are confined primarily
to content of the plat and are intended to:
Insure that the plat reflects approval of the parties concerned so as
to avoid subsequent problems (requested by Planning staff).
Permit the County and others to determine the location and nature of
transactions (requested by Finance Department and Planning staff).
Inform that exempt plats have not been reviewed for compliance with
subdivision and zoning regulations through a disclaimer statement
(requested by Planning staff).
Insure consistency with Zoning requirements such as the Flood Hazard
Overlay District (to insure continued eligibility under the FEMA
Regular Insurance Program).
Amendments related to 'family divisions' are intended to:
Insure that basic health and safety considerations are satisfied.
Establish definitive roadway standards.
Reduce Commission agenda time devoted to review of appeals of
administrative decisions.
In the late 1970's the General Assembly amended the Code of Virginia to
include special provisions for family divisions to exclude application of
most local subdivision regulation. Staff opinion is that it was not intended
that family divisions be exempt from basic safety requirements, particularly
May 21, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
589
those which could affect the general public or those requirements of state
agencies (i.e. - Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; Health
Department). Therefore, staff recommends that basic safety requirements are
within the context of 'reasonable provisions' for family divisions as set
forth in the Code of Virginia.
During the 1985 session, the General Assembly amended the Code of Virginia
to permit a locality to have 'reasonable provisions' in its Subdivision
Ordinance for family division as 'to any requirement imposed by the local
governing body that all lots of less than five acres have reasonable
right-of-way of not less than ten feet or more than twenty feet providing
ingress and egress to a dedicated-recorded public street or thoroughfare.'
Staff is authorized to administratively approve family divisions served by
private roads 'adequate to carry the traffic volume which may be reasonably
expected to be generated by such subdivision' (Section 18-36(d)). In his
review, the County Engineer uses the tables in Section 18-36(e) to make this
determination, since these tables represent minimum standards for improvement.
It has become common practice for an applicant to appeal to the Planning
Commission to override the County Engineer's decision. This practice, of
course, consumes Commission agenda time and results in case-by-case reviews
which could result in inconsistencies.
(Mr. Henley interrupted the staff report and said he thinks it is ridiculous for the
County Engineer to require that a public road be built for one lot and there should be
somewhere to make an appeal. Mr. Horne said lately appeals have been happening considerably
more. The staff is attempting to change those road requirements to make them more definitive
so that it is known precisely what is requested of an applicant and to limit somewhat the
extent of roadway improvements applied to a family division.)
A. EXEMPT PLAT AI~RNDMENTS
To avoid ambiguity and repeated reviews, plats/deeds involving transfer
of acreage from one parcel to another should clearly reflect approval
of concerned parties. Amend Section 18-2 DEFINITIONS as follows:
Subdivision: The division, including resubdivision and the
establishment of any condominium regime, of a parcel of land
resulting in two (2) or more lots, parcels or units for the
purpose of transfer of ownership or building development, such
that:
Se
Any one of such lots, parcels or units is less than five
(5) acres in area; or
Any one of such lots, parcels or units fronts less than
two hundred fifty (250) feet on a road which is part of
the state secondary highway system. (Amended 2/4/81)
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following shall not be deemed a
subdivision:
Se
The sale and/or exchange of land between adjoining land
owners, provided that:
The land so sold and/or exchanged shall be added to and
become part of an existing adjacent parcel as evidenced
by appropriate symbol and wording on the plat or-~v~-
s~e~ together with signatures of both landowners pursu
ant to Section 18-55(b) a~%e~ and by the instrument of
conveyance thereof; and
No parcel which was five (5) acres or greater in area
prior to such sale and/or exchange shall, as a result of
such sale and/or exchange, be less than five (5) acres
in area; and,
e
No parcel shall, as a result of such sale and/or ex-
change, front less than two hundred fifty (250) feet on
a road which is part of the state highway system or
state secondary highway system; and (amended 2/4/81)
No additional lot or parcel shall be created by such
sale and/or exchange.
OR
The division of any parcel occasioned by an exercise of
eminent domain by any public agency.
The foregoing notwithstanding all eehem divisions of land shall be
deemed to be subdivisions for the sole purpose of the application
of Section 18-13(b) of this chapter.
Ail plats should contain minimum, information necessary to adequately
describe the transaction including acreage of parcels involved, accu-
rate field survey and consent signature. Also to insure continued
eligibility for federal flood insurance and compliance with local flood
plain regulation, flood plain delineation should be required. Adequate
staff review time should be afforded. Amend Sections 18-13(b),
18-55(b), and 18-55(c) as follows:
59O
May 21, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
18-13(b) Every division which is not subject to review in accor-
dance with Section 18-13(a) or Section 18-41 shall be submitted
for review by the Director of Planning to ensure compliance with
Section 18-28 and Section 18-55 (b), (c), (h), (o), (p), (q), (r),
and (s) hereof. The Director of Planning shall review each such
plat within five (5) days of filing; however, no such review shall
be provided within two (2) days of filing, except in such case
where preliminary review by staff has been provided.
(Mr. Bowie commented that this statement mandates two days notice. This regulates the
review to not before two days and makes it binding. Mr. Horne said that is not the intent.
The intent is to legally give the staff additional time if it is needed.)
18-55(b) A statement that: "The subdivision division of the land
described herein is with the free consent and in accordance with
the desire of the undersigned owner, properties, and trustees.
Any reference to future potential development is to be deemed as
theoretical only. All statements affixed to this plat are true
and correct to the best of my knowledge."
18-55(c) The boundary lines of the area being subdivided shall be
determined by an accurate field survey with bearings shown in
degrees, minutes, and seconds to the nearest ten (10) seconds and
dimensions to be shown in feet to the nearest hundredths of a foot
to the accuracy of one (1) in five thousand (5,000). Total acres
in each existing and proposed use parcel plus ~-~a~ delinea-
tion of the Flood Hazard Overlay District of the zoning ordinance
shall be shown.
Lot frontage regulations should be consistent with Zoning Ordinance
requirements. Criteria for reducing frontage should be specified.
Amend Section 18-30 as follows:
Section 18-30. Location
Every subdivision lot shall front on an existing public street, or
a street dedicated by the subdivision plat and maintained or
designed and built to be maintained by the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation, except that private roads shall be
permitted in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
Except for lots fronting on a cul-de-sac, ~he frontage ~-s~eh
s~ee~ shall not be less than e~§h~y-%88~-pe~ee~-~-~he-~-w~h
~e~e~-a~-~he-B~~-se~Bae~-~e required by the zoning
ordinance· This regulation'may be reduced for frontage on public
street or private road cul-de-sacs; provided that driveway separa-
tion shall be in accordance with Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation standards· When a new subdivision abuts one
side of an existing or platted street, the subdivider shall dedi-
cate at least half the right-of-way necessary to make such street
comply with the minimum width fixed for the same by this chapter.
Section 18-37(m) should have been amended at time of adoption of new
private road provisions. Amend Section 18-37(m) as follows:
(m) Access road. No subdivision shall be approved unless the
principal means of access thereto shall conform to the standards
of the state department of highways and transportation, or, in the
case of a private road, to the standards of the County as set
forth in Section 18-36(c) of this chapter, throughout its length,
including any distance between the boundary of the proposed
subdivision and an existing public road.
(Mr. Lindstrom asked to what Section 18-36 originally was intended to refer. Mr. Horne
said original 18-36(c) was a private road requirement but as a specific category. Mr.
Lindstrom said he is concerned about the confusion this all may create. Mr. Horne said
originally the standard table were in a under Section 18-36(c) and now that table is under
Section 18-36(e). The only change is the lettering of the table, the reference is to the
same set of regulations. Mr. Lindstrom said if the intent is that there be at least a
minimum standard for the road since this section contains all the standards, it should
possibly state that the standard be the minimum standard set forth under Section 18-36 rather
than leaving it open. He has no trouble with the section.but thinks such a statement would
make it clearer. Mr. Horne said Section 18-36 contains a number of statements of how the
Commission can approve certain types of roads. There are various levels of construction
depending on the number of' lots. His interpretation is that a person can do the minimum that
the section will allow for the number of units created. Mr. Lindstrom said he still would
like to see it made clearer.)
FAMILY DIVISION AMEND~S
Amend private road provisions as they relate to two lot divisions and
family divisions to establish definitive roadway standards. Amend
Section 18-36(e) as follows including relocation of Tables I and II
within the text:
18-36(e) All private roads approved pursuant to this section
shall be constructed with the following:
May 21, 198.6 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15_3__
591
Private roads permitted under sections 18-36(b)(1), 18-36(b)(2)
and 18-36(b)(5) shall conform to the requirements of Table I.
Private roads permitted under section 18-36(b)(3) shall
conform to the requirements of Table I except that a minimum
CBR of subgrade of ten (10) shall be required and the depth
of base, width of travelway, minimum sight distance and
surface treatment may be increased in accordance with the
standards of the Virginia Department of Highways and Trans-
portation for the most traffic-intensive uses to which such
land may lawfully be devoted. Private roads permitted under
section 18,36(b)(4) shall conform to the requirements of
Table II. E~eep~-as-may-be-~e~e~-~e~-see~m-~8-~6%~?
~he~e-sha~-Be-~o-m~m~m~m-s~a~ar~s-~-p~¥a~e-~a~s-perm~e~
2. (same).
3. (same).
4. (same).
5. (same).
TABLE I
Single-family detached
(Residential/Agricultural/Commercial/Industrial)
Number of Lots Widthlof ' Depth of Surface Minimum
Served by the Road Trave!way Base Treatment Sisht Distance
SEE NOTE ONE In addition (¥DH&T (Except as (In accordance
to four foot aggregate otherwise with VDH&T
shoulders base) expressly methodology
and ditch provided) for stOpping
requirements sight distance)
2 lots i SEE NOTE TWO
Family division
only
(3 or more lots) 12 feet 6 inches Not required 100 feet
i #25 or #26 SEE NOTE 3
3-5 lots 14 feet 6 inches Not required 100 feet
#25 or #26 SEE NOTE 3
6-10 lots 14 feet 6 inches Prime and 100 feet
#21 Double Seal
of Approved
Equivalent
11-20 lots 18 feet 6 inches Prime and 120 feet
#21 Double Seal
or Approved
Equivalent
NOTE ONE: Number of lots served shall mean the aggregate of all lots
served by such road segment and all lots having access over such
segment to a public road. Road segment shall mean each portion of a
private road between its intersection with other private or public
roads (see illustration).
NOTE TWO: The surveyor shall certify on the plat that the existing
and/or proposed riqht-of-wa~ is of adequate width and horizontal and
vertical alignment to accommodate a travelway passable by ordinary
passenger vehicle in all but temporary extreme weather conditions,
to~ether with area adequate for maintenance of such travelway. Such
Certification may be accomplished by the followin9 wordin~ on the plat:
'This private road will provide reasonable access by motor vehicle as
required by Section 18-36 of the Albemarle County Code.' This provi-
sion includes family divisions of two (2) lots.
NOTE RrW8 THREE: When slope of road is seven (7)percent or less. If
slope exceeds seven (7) percent, six (6) inches of number 21 or number
2lA and prime and double seal.
AMEND THE REQUIREMRNTS FOR FAMILY DIVISIONS AS FOLLOWS:
ARTICLE V. SPECIAL PROVISIONS
APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN DIVISION
Section 18-56. Definitions. (Family Division)
For purposes of this article, the following terms shall be defined
as follows:
592
May 21, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
( Pa~e 2k6~
The term 'member of the immediate family' shall mean the
natural or legally defined off-spring, spouse or parent of
the owner of a lot or parcel of land.
The term 'family division' shall mean the single division of
a lot or parcel for the purpose of sale or gift to a member
of the immediate family of the owner of such lot or parcel.
(10-17-79).
Section 18-57. Exemption of certain division; qualifications.
Subject to the following qualifications, any family division shall
be exempt from the requirements of this chapter and shall be
subject only to any express requirement contained in the Code of
Virginia. The following qualifications are expressly declared to
be for the purposes of protecting the public health, safety and
welfare and of preventing the circumvention of this section, which
circumvention is hereby prohibited.
a. There shall be only one such division per family member.
No such parcel shall be further divided except in accordance
with the provisions of this chapter.
No such parcel shall be transferred, except by devise,
descent or operation of law, to a person other than a member
of the immediate family of the transferor, for a period of
one year, except for purposes of securing any purchase money
and/or construction loan, including bona fide refinancing. A
statement shall be affixed to the plat that such parcel shal~
not be transferred for a period of one (1) year from date of
recordation except in accordance with this section.
Any such parcel which is transferred to the owner of any
adjacent parcel shall be deemed to become an integral part of
such adjacent parcel and shall be so noted on the plat by
appropriate symbol and wordin9.
The requirements of Sections 18-36(a), anR-~8-~6+R~
18-36(d)(2), 18-36(d)(3), 18-36(d)(4), 18-36(f) as it per-
tains to access, and 18-36(e)(1) shall apply to any plat
submitted pursuant to section 18-36(b)(5) of this chapter.
For purposes of this section only, the Director of Planning
is hereby constituted as agent of the Commission for purposes
of administration of section 18-36(h) as it relates to
section 18-36(f).
Ail parcels created by such division shall conform to the
provisions of the zoning ordinance applicable to such lot.
gm
The entrance of the principal means of access for such parcel
onto any public road shall comply with the applicable require-
ments of the Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation.
Any lot created which is less than five (5) acres shall
comply with Section 18-23 of this chapter.
i. In addition to the foregoing, any such plat shall comply with
Section 18-13(b) of this chapter.
Section 18-58. Procedure.
Each such division shall be registered by the filing of such
division with the Director of Planning, who shall make a determi-
nation as to whether such division is in accord with the provi-
sions of sections 18-13(b) and 18-57 of this chapter. In the
event that he shall determine that such division is so in accord
shall issue a certification of exemption which shall be recorded
with the plat of such division. No such plat shall be recorded
without the attachment of such certifiCate. In the event that he
shall~determine that such division is not so in accord, he shall
deny such certificate, giving in writing his reasons for such
determination. The Director of Planning shall act either to issue
or deny such certificate w~h~n-~ve-~L~ays-e~-s~eh-~~ in
accordance with section 18-13(b). The provisions of Section
18-43(b) shall apply, m~ka~s-mmean~s; to any such division."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission at its meeting on May 6, 1986, unanimously
recommended approval of STA-86-01.
The public hearing was opened.
public hearing was closed.
There being no one present from the public to speak, the
Mr. Fisher suggested that if Board members had concerns and suggestions for changes that
action on the amendment be deferred until June 11.
May 21, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
~el~
Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to see Section 18-37(m) clarified. In addition,
Section 18-36(e) be rewritten as follows: "All private roads approved pursuant to this
section shall be constructed according to the following:" He also suggested that the last
sentence in Section 18-13(b) be amended to read: "The Director of Planning shall review ...
however, the Director of Planning may have up to two days to review submitted divisions prior
to approval." Mr. Fisher suggested that the staff rewrite Section 18-13(b) to allow that
action may be taken by the Director of Planning within two days after submittal of plats for
division, if adequate information is furnished and that the staff clarify Section 18-37Im) to
include the specific section being referred to for road standards.
Mr. Way said, for example, in reference to Table I, Family Division, three or more lots,
he owns 50 acres, gave two lots to his children on which to build, so now there are three
lots on that piece of property. He asked if that means there would have to be a 12 foot
roadway with six inches of gravel built from house to house. Mr. St. John said not if the
houses are built so that they have separate driveways or rights-of-way. Mr. Lindstrom said
his understanding is that the roadway has to be built where the lots come together and all
three lots are then served by the common road. Mr. Horne replied that that is correct, but
there are provisions that preclude unlimited accesses onto a public roadway. There are also
provisions that encourage some type of common driveway. In response to Mr. Way, for those
sections that have three lots that have access to the section, the owner would have to build
the roadway to that construction standard. Mr. Fisher asked if this requirement would be a
disincentive for people to build joint driveways. Mr. Horne said the Engineering Department
is now applying the non-family division standards to roads. If anything, this provides for a
lower standard of subdivision road to family divisions than what is typically being required
now. The existing three to five lot standard applied now requires a 14 foot roadway with six
inches of gravel. The maximum standard for family divisions under the new language would be
12 foot construction. Mr. St. John said this is the first time he has heard that was being
done and he questions the legality of requiring a public standard road to serve a family
division. He does not believe public road standards can be imposed on~a family division.
Mr. Fisher again suggested that action be deferred on the amendment, and to request the
staff to rewrite Section 18-13(b) to allow action within two days if ~something is ready; to
revise Section 18-37(m) to designate the specific section on the road standards; and to ask
the County Attorney to verify that road requirements for family divisions are in accordance
with State Code provisions.
Mr. Bowie said although he does not intend to support the amendment, he will offer
motion to defer action on STA-86-1 until June 11 for the reasons stated. Mr. Lindstrom
seconded the motion~ Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 11. Status of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission.
With regard to previous discussions on the status of the Thomas Jefferson Planning
District Commission, Mr. Bowie referenced a letter from Ms. Sally Thomas, former member of
the Planning District Commission, and said he feels that the PDC is not doing enough in the
area of coordinating planning and is attempting to do too much actual planning. The PDC does
have a meeting scheduled for May 22 and he does not know what will happen.
Mr. Fisher said he feels that the PDC should be continued but perhaps its mission
changed or restructured to meet the circumstances that pertain today which are quite differ-
ent from those that generated the interest in its formation in the early 1970's.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would like the Board to provide him and Mr. Bowie some guidance.
He asked if there is a willingness by the Board to fund the original request of the PDC
through a special appropriation to the level that had been requested at $.45 per capita which
is approximately $8,100 over the amount appropriated this year. That amount is also what the
PDC believes is necessary to maintain an effective level of staffing. Mr. Henley said he
does not think the PDC needs to undertake all that it does. Mr. Lindstrom then offered
motion to appropriate the additional funds to meet the original request of the PDC. The
Chairman stated that there being no second, the motion died.
Mr. Fisher said if the purpose of the PDC is vague and uncertain it is hard to generate
support for additional funding. Mr. Lindstrom then asked the Board's reaction to withdrawing
participation in the PDC. Mr. Fisher said the Board has already set aside an amount of money
to allow the PDC to continue at a funding level based on last year's expenditures. Mr.
Lindstrom said the point is that the PDC has not received appropriations from other jurisdic-
tions, and there are attendance and goal problems.
Mr. Bowie said he personally thinks that to disband the PDC or to withdraw from it would
be a mistake. He thinks there is and has been a demonstrated need for the PDC. He thinks
the problem is the County is funding far more than it is receiving. He is not willing to pay
for planning, but is willing to support the PDC's Executive staff which provides a vehicle
for coordination. He feels that any additional staff should be paid for by those persons who
want to use the staff, for a service, and not paid for by a per capita contribution. Mr.
Henley said he agrees with Mr. Bowie.
Mrs. Cooke said her concern is that if'the services the PDC provides is so valuable why
it is so difficult to get representatives of the other localities to attend the meetings She
does not feel that the PDC is that necessary to Albemarle County from a planning standpoint
because the County has its own Planning staff. She does not see a reason to continue provid-
ing money to an organization to keep it going if there is not that much interest. She does
not think it is a wise expenditure of taxpayer's money to maintain a professional staff.
594
May 21, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Lindstrom said it has been discussed informally that the PDC be responsible for the
housing coordinator's position. His problem with that is that the PDC is so unstructured in
terms of what they were doing that he is concerned that the County would not get the services
it needs from that position.
There was no further discussion on the matter at this time.
Agenda Item No. 12. Authorization for Mr. Fisher to vote at the NACo Annual Meeting.
Mrs. Cooke offered motion to authorize Mr. Fisher to vote on behalf of Albemarle County
at NACo's Annual Conference. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was called and the vote
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Bowie commented that he may attend the meeting, as he plans to be on the West Coast
at that time, but he will pay his own way.
Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public.
Mr. Fisher presented the following letter received, dated May 19, 1986, from Mr. Mark N.
Reynolds, Extension Agent/Agriculture:
"I am writing you to inform you of the crucial drought situation that exists
here in the county. During the months of January, February, March, and
April we only received 39 percent of our normal rainfall. Considering the
fact that our grasses make two-thirds of their normal growth during the
spring months, the first cutting of hay yields were reduced by a minimum of
40 percent. With over 77,000 acres of our county agricultural land devoted
to the production of hay, using an average yield of three tons per acre and
average value of $60 per ton, this would mean a loss of over $3,700,000 to
county farmers. With an exceptional summer, some of this could be made up.
Other crops in the county like corn, pastures, and fruit have been hurt too,
but at this time it is too early to determine losses. Please do not be
fooled by the nice rain we received recently. Every little bit helps, but
it is too late to save the first cutting of hay.
I am forwarding this same information on to the State Emergency Board and
ask that the Board of Supervisors notify the Governor by letter or emergency
proclamation of this situation."
Mr. Henley said he thinks it is too early to act and he does not think there is a dire
emergency at this time. Mr. Fisher suggested that the request be put back on the agenda when
the staff thinks that it is appropriate for consideration. Mr. Agnor said he discussed this
with Mr. Ray Jones, Deputy County Executive, and he agrees that the request is premature. In
addition, Mr. Jones is going to check to see if the process is more formal than writing the
Governor.
Mr. Bowie said he has been approached by a constituent who wants to donate pine trees,
if they are needed, to screen the new proposed City/County park. He will pass the informa-
tion on to the staff.
At 11:33 P.M., Mr. Way offered motion to adjourn into executive session to discuss
property matters. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following ~ecorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 14.
immediately adjourned.
Adjourn.
The Board reconvened into open session at 11:50 P.M. and