1984-05-02May 2, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was
held on May 2, 1984, at 7:30 P.M. in the Auditorium of the County Office Building, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Mr. Frederick R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke and Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom
and Peter T. Way.
Absent: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher and J. T. Henley, Jr.
Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R.
St. John; and Deputy County Executive and Director of Planning, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Mrs. Cooke.
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by the Vice-Chairman,
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Moment of Silence.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 4. SP-84-8. Leslie A. Reaser. Request to locate nursery school in
residence on 5.525 acres zoned Rural Areas. Located on northeast side of Rt. 680, 1/4
mile north of Beaver Creek Reservoir. County Tax Map 57, Parcel 67. White Hall District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 17 and April 24, 1984.)
Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning, presented the following staff report:
".~quest: Nursery School
Acreage: 5.525 acres
Zoning: RA Rural Areas
Location: Northeast side of Route 680 about one-half mile north of
Beaver Creek Reservoir.
Character of the Area: Route 680 is a paved road which connects White Hall
and Mechums River. It carries 577 vehicle trips per day and is listed
as nontolerable. Most of the parcels in the area exceed five acres
with scattered residential development. Subject property has been
partially cleared for a new residence and has good pine screening
along the rear property line.
s~mmm ~r~ and Recommendations: This request is for a nursery school operating
9 A.M. to 12 Noon, Monday through Friday, for children aged two to five
years. Theschoo~widlbe located in a new residence and will not differ
substantially in appearance from other residences in the area. The
major impact may be increased traffic on Route 680, but it is likely
that local residents will use the facility. Staff recommends approval
for ten children with administrative approval required for expansion
to twenty children.
Staff Comment: A letter describing the applicant's proposal is on file (in
the Clerk's Office). He plans to construct a new residence with the
nursery school in the walk-out basement. The applicant is requesting
approval for twenty children and two teachers to allow for possible
expansion. Section 5.1.6(a) requires State licensure for a child
care center. However, a license is not required for this proposal
based on the ages of the children and the proposed hours of operation.
Therefore, staff recommends approval of the requested waiver of this
section.
The applicant's proposal does comply with standards of the Virginia
Department of Welfare for indoor/outdoor play area per child and one
adult per ten children. The Zoning Ordinance requires one parking
space per ten children and one per employee. The Building Official
has commented that the number of children permitted is determined
by the square foot area of the structure. The occupancy load is
determined when the building permit is reviewed. He states that
twenty children should not present a problem.
The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has reviewed
the application for ten children per day and has noted that adequate
sight distance can be obtained as shown on an attached sketch (Oopy
on file in Clerk's Office). The Highway Department recommends that
the existing entrance be upgraded to a private street commercial
entrance. No turn lane will be required for ten children but one
may be required for twenty children. Therefore, this application will
have to be limited to ten children with provision for administrative
review when expansion is requested.
The Watershed Manggement Official notes that the site is within the
South Fork Rivanna River Watershed.
May 2, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
!£7
If the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve
this request, then staff recommends the following conditions:
1. Permit is issued to the applicant and is nontransferrable;
2. Supplementary regulations 5.1.6 shall apply and 5.1.6(a)is waived;
3. Staff approval of site plan including fenced play area and parking;
4. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of private
street commercial entrance permit;
5. This approval is valid for ten children with administrative (including ~
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation) approval required
for future expansion to twenty children maximum;
6. Fire Officer and Building Official approvals;
7. Health Department approval to be based on twenty children."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on April 10, 1984, unanimously
recommended approval with the above seven conditions and the following as the eighth:
"Notification of adjacent property owners when applicant seeks expansion from ten to
twenty children; if any objection is received, this proposed increase will be reviewed by
the ?tanning Commission." Mr. Tucker said the Commission also directed the staff to
-~otiTy~he Whi~e~Hal~istrict Commissioner when a request for expansion is made.
The public hearing was opened. Mrs. Leslie Reaser, applicant, was present and had
no comments. With no one .else present So speak for or against the petition, the public
hearing was closed.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve S?-84-8 with the eight conditions recommended
by the Planning Commission. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher and Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 5. SP-84-9. Paul D. and Jill F. Summers, Jr. Request to locate
Farmfngton Hunt Club on 55.63 acres zoned Rural Areas. Located on northwest side of
Route 671 one mile south of its intersection with Route 601. County Tax Map 16, Parcel
26. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 17 and April 24,
1984.)
Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report:
"R.eAu.est: Relocate Farmington Hunt Club
Acreage: 55.63 acres
Zoning: RA Rural Areas
Location: Northwest side of Route 671 near Buck Mountain
Character of the Area: Route 671 is a gravel road which carries thirty-four
vehicle trips per day in this area and is listed as nontolerable. The
site is located about one-half mile from hard surfaced Route 601. Most
of the adjacent properties are large acreages. Subject property is mostly
open pasture, about twelve percent slope. The property is steeper and
wooded to the rear. A fire trail abuts the property to the southwest.
The nearest visible residence is on Parcel 28 to the northeast.
Summary. and Recommendations: The applicant proposes a kennel, stable and
clubhouse for use by a private club. Staff opinion is that this
proposed use is compatible with the character of the district,
and with site plan approval, will not have an adverse impact
on adjacent properties. Due to the number of hounds to be boarded,
staff recommends compliance with supplementary regulations for
commercial kennels.
Staff Comment: The~Farmington Hunt Club wishes to relocate its kennels,
stables and probably its clubhouse from the existing'location on Garth
Road. The property at the existing location is for sale, in whole or in-
part. The existing clubhouse may be retained for social functions. If
it is sold, which is probable, then a new clubhouse will be erected on.
the subject property within one year.
The new' clubhouse is planned as a modest one room log cabin, to be used
for occasional social gatherings approximately twelve times a year. No
restaurant, pool or tennis facilities are proposed at this time. The
main activity of the new site'will be the care of about one hundred hounds
in a proposed kennel. A modular house will be constructed for a caretaker.
About six stables are also proposed. No ring is proposed.
Several times a year hunts will be initiated at this site. Hunts are now
held at various farms between this site and~the Garth Road location.
The Hunt Club currently has about 115 regular members, as well as associate,
student and farmer members, about 200 total. If the social functions are
moved to this site,.the Club foresees a drop in membership due to the
location.
May 2, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
The major impacts of this proposal will be increased traffic on Route 671
and noise from the kennel. The Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation has commented that it sees no problem with this request.
A permit for an entrance with adequate sight distance will be required.
Regarding the noise impact, the Zoning Ordinance requires that commercial
kennels be located 500 feet from an agricultural or residential property
line, or 200 feet if the buildings are soundproofed and air-conditioned.
Noise level at the property line shall not exceed 40 decibels. For non-
soundproofed confinements, a solid six-foot high wall is required within
fifty feet of the enclosure. Animals must be kept inside from 10 p.m.
to 6 a.m.
The Watershed Management Official notes that the site is within the
South Fork Rivanna River watershed and the Buck Mountain Creek sub-
watershed. He recommends that precautions be taken to insure that
runoff from the site is contained and only the minimum amount of area is
disturbed. The control of runoff from kennel areas should receive
special considerations. Area adjacent to streams should be carefully
maintained and protected.
Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this petition, staff
recommends the following conditions:
Administrative (Technical Review Committee) approval of site plan;
Building Official and Health Department approval to insure the
kennel is designed so that all washdown water is directed to an
approved septic system;
Kennel shall be located five hundred feet from all property lines
or two hundred feet if soundproofed such that noise measured at the
property line will not exceed 40 decibels;
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of
entrance permit;
Ail dogs shall be confined in an enclosed soundproofed building
from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 10, 1984, unanimously
recommended approval of SP-84-9 with conditions 1 through 4 as recommended by the staff
but changing condition 3 to read: "Kennel shall be located five hundred feet from all
property lines." The applicant had a problem with condition 5 because the desire is to
contain the dogs in outside runs on summer nights rather than having the dogs confined.
Since the kennel can be located more than five hundred feet from any property line, the
Commission did not recommend that condition. Mr. Bowie asked the distance to the nearest
neighbor. Mr. Tucker said the nearest house is twelve hundred feet away. Mr. Lindstrom
asked if the special permit contains any limitations regarding uses of the clubhouse.
Mr. Tucker said no, the request is for the relocation of the club but a condition can be
added, if desired, regarding the uses of the clubhouse. Mr. Lindstrom said he understands
that the same level of usage is not expected for this facility as at the existing facility.
Mr. Tucker said as indicated in the staff report, the membership is expected to decrease
for social functions because of this relocation.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Forbes Reback, attorney representing the Farmington
Hunt Club and the applicants, was present. He said the applicants are agreeable to the
conditions imposed by the Planning Commission and he hoped the Board followed the same
action for approval.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if this facility will be rented for other functions as the
existing facility has been. Mr. Reback said he could not answer that question because
the clubhouse has not been built. The immediate concern is to move the kennel and the
caretakers house in order to vacate the existing facility. The building of the clubhouse
is a secondary concern and he did not see that occurring immediately. Therefore, he was
not prepared to discuss that concern.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the dogs at the existing facility are kept inside or outside.
Mr. Reback said the dogs are kept both places.
Mrs. Cooke asked if the new clubhouse will have a kitchen facility. Mr. Reback said
there will be a kitchen and as he understands, the proposal is for a one room log type
structure with an adjoining bathroom and kitchen facilities. These facilities will
occasionally be used for club functions.
With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing
was closed.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested a condition be added to require that site plan review for a
clubhouse also include reviewing the other uses proposed as well. The reason for this
suggestion is because the existing facility has extensive uses and he felt some condition
should be imposed regarding same. He then suggested the following wording as condition
5: "At the time of site plan review, the Planning Commission shall review other uses
proposed for the clubhouse (i.e., restaurant, rental, etc.), and shall be authorized to
condition these other uses." With that suggestion, he offered motion to approve SP-84-9
with~the four conditions of the Planning Commission and the above wording as condition 5.
Mr. Bowie seconded the motion.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if any complaints had been received about the existing location.
Mr. Tucker said no complaints have been received.
Roll was called on the foregoing motion of approva! and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher and Henley.
May 2, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 6. CPA-84-3.
urban drainage improvements plan.
April 24, 1984.)
Amendment to the County Comprehensive Plan to inclUde
[Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 17 and
Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report:
"At its meeting on February 8, 1984, the-Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors adopted a Resolution of Intent to amend the Albemarle
County Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002 to include as an element., an urban
drainage improvements plan and priority projects, as recommended by the
Office of the County Engineer. The Board requested that the Planning
Commission hold a public hearing and return its recommendation as
soon as possible.
Staff has reviewed the plan and has prepared a separate section titled
Urban Drainage Improvements to be included in Chapter 14 Community
Facilities and Utilities Plans. The improvements cited in the section
are located in Urban Areas One, Five and Seven and the Community of Crozet.
This section should be amended as other areas are studied and improvements
prepared.
General Recommendations and Standards -- A study was prepared by
the Office of the County Engineer to determine the extent of drainage
problems that have occurred in the urban area of Albemarle County due to
recent growth. As an area develops, a myriad of potential problems exist.
Impervious pavements and buildings increase both the volume of stormwater
runoff and the magnitude of peak flood flows.
Many of the problems identified in the report were discovered by complaints
filed by County residents. This was particularly true during the majority
of 1982. The next year was a 'dry' year; therefore, relatively few
additional problems were reported. Some areas where flooding and/or erosion
might occur due to future development were also studied.
Drainage problems that affected only County roads were excluded from the
study; however, problems associated with roads that affected County residents
or businesses were assessed. The intent of the study was to determine
which drainage problems the County should take an active role in solving
and what the costs would be to reach the solutions.
Problems that were not very serious or were due to runoff from natural
watersheds or from the owner's own property were excluded. The Office of
the County Engineer has provided information and assistance to Citizens in
these cases.
Local surveyors were contacted to provide actual cross sections and profiles
of drainage systems in the problem areas identified. Hydraulic capacities of
the various water courses were analyzed by computer. Where pipes or channels
were found to be inadequate, two alternative solutions were studied:
- Enlarge or replace the inadequate structure;
- Provide upstream stormwater detention facilities that would reduce the
runoff sufficiently enough to make the existing facility adequate.
Cost estimates were then.provided for both alternatives. The solution to
provide detention basins was examined closely in light of the beneficial
environmental effects on receiving streams, i.e., the trapping of sediment
and pollutants from urban areas and the lessening of erosion in natural
streams and rivers.
As part of the overall drainage improvements plan, recommendations for
both prioritizing and funding projects were developed. The priority system
was based primarily on an evaluation of the severity of the problem and
the amount of funds that may be obtained from non-County sources. No projects
were ranked lower because of lack of outside funds;~however, some projects
were prioritized higher because of the likelihood of non-County funds. The
projects were grouped into Priorities I, II or III, with I being the highest
and III the lowest.
Priority I projects include:
PrpJ ect Number
Title and Description
.20
Berkmar Detention Basin - Construction of a detention
basin twelve feet deep that will flood, approximately
one acre during heavy rains. [Mr. Tucker said this
will relieve flooding of the Wayside Press Building
and reduce flooding along Dominion Drive.)
4.21
(Reserved pending further study.) (Mr. Tucker said
this is the Four Seasons Detention Basin and the County
Engineer has studied the matter and has some recommendations.)
.22
Birnam Detention Basin - Construction of a detention
basin twelve feet deep that will flood approximately 1.3 acres
during heavy rains. [Mr. Tucker said this is needed to
reduce the flooding in the Pizza Inn, Four Seasons Drive
and Commonwealth Drive areas.)
May 2, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)-
4.23
Wynridge Detention Basin - Alteration of two existing
small basins and combine them with additional land to
create a basin ten feet deep covering approximately 1.5
acres. (The two smaller bas/ns are now being
maintained by the homeowners.)
4.24
Berkeley Storm Sewer~ Phase I - Construction of 350 feet
of storm sewer in existing channel. (This will eliminate
erosion and debris problems.)
4.26
(Reserved pending further study.) (Bennington Road is
the project area and the County Engineer will discuss
this later.)
4.27
Old Forge Storm Sewer - Construction of drop inlet,
curb and 300 feet of storm sewer.
4.28
Smithfield Road Storm Sewer - Construction of drop
inlet and 250 feet of storm sewer. (Mr. Tucker said
this project will relieve flooding of two existing
residences.)
4.31
Windham/Jarman Gap Road Channel - Construction of 1,200
feet of storm sewer and channel improvements. (Mr.
Tucker said this project will eliminate future
flooding problems.)
Priority II projects include:
Project Number
Title and Description
4.25
Berkeley Storm Sewer~ Phase II -- Construction of
1,000 feet of storm sewer in an existing channel. (Mr.
Tucker said the project eliminates erosion and debris
problems.)
4.30
Camellia Detention Basin - Replacement of existing open
detention basin with an underground pipe to act as a
basin. (This project will eliminate high maintenance
cost and relieve yard areas of existing homes.)
4.32
Lynchburg Road Storm Sewer - Repairing of existing
storm sewer. (This eliminates settling of rear yards.)
4.33
Four Seasons Drive Channel - Improvement of entrance and
outlet conditions at existing culverts. (This will
increase the capacity of the culvert and reduce flooding.)
4.35
Solomon Road Improvements - Enlargement and extension
of existing culvert. (This eliminates flooding and
erosion of existing roads.)
Priority III projects include:
P~oject Number
Tlt!e~and Description
4.29
4.34
Berkshire Road Channel - Improvement of alignment of
channel a~nd line with concrete or rip-rap. (This will
redUce future erosion and preserve yards.)
Woodbrook Channel - Widening of channel in vicinity
of old Woodbrook Sewage Lagoon. (This will relieve
flooding problems.)
The implementation of these projects will be subject to the County's ability to
finance them. It should not be interpreted, however, that Albemarle County by
adopting this plan is required to initiate these improvements or that development
is limited only to those recommended. This list of drainage improvement projects
should be amended as other problem areas are identified and studied and
recommendations prepared.
Ail of the projects prepared herein involve runoff from drainage areas that are
either partially or completely developed. Some other projects may be completely
financed from contributions made by developers in lieu of their providing on-site
detention facilities as required by the Stormwater Detention Ordinance.
Where the watershed is completely developed, funding could be obtained from the
following methods and sources:
Create a 'waterShed improvement district" or a 'sanitary district'. Both
of these methods require a referendum of landowners and voters, most of
whom may not receive any direct benefit from the project.
Assess a tax on.property owners who abut and who would derive 'peculiar
benefits' from the project. Section 15.1-239 of the ¥irginia Code
provides legislation for the assessment of storm sewers.
May 2, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
13!
Make general fund appropriations to the Capital Improvements Program
Budget. This approach seems to be the most logical source for
approximately seventy-five percent of the drainage program proposed
herein. The timing of the other twenty-five percent, developer
contributions, is uncertain; however, those contributions may be
used to reimburse the County for any expenditures.
It is recommended that these drainage projects should be reviewed as part of
the Capital Improvements Program. Priority I projects are recommended for
fiscal year 1984-85 and the Priority II projects are Shown for fiscal year
1985-1986. The Priority III projects could be considered for fiscal year
1985-1986 or 1986-1987."
Mr. Tucker said a petition signed by residents in the Four Seasons area, letters
from the League of Women Voters, the Piedmont Environmental Council and the Woolen Mills
'Neighborhood Association have been received and distributed to the Board (Copies of these
letters and the petition are on file in the Clerk's Office). Mr. Tucker said the Planning
Commission, at its meeting of April 3, 1984, unanimously recommended adoption of
CPA-84-3 but reserved making a recommendation on projects 4.21 and 4.26 pending further
study by the County Engineer. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, is
present and will comment on those two projects.
Mr. Elrod pointed out the Four Seasons area and noted the normal pool level for the
existing lake. The first proposal was to drain the entire lake and turn same into a park
area with grass and trees. However, this was not supported by the residents since they
desire that the lake remain as close as possible to its existing character. An alternate
proposal was then prepared which would make the same amount of storage that would be
possible if the lake were drained. Mr. Elrod said if the lake is to remain in its existing
state, the dam has to be raised as well as the land surface around the lake in order that
the storage above the lake could be retained and not be lower than the existing surface.
A four-foot high berm would not be high enough to accomplish this which also involves the
pool level, and the lake would then be higher than some of the homes. A third proposal
was developed to lower the lake and have a smaller berm built around the lake. After the
proposals were analyzed, lowering the surface of the lake three feet and building a two-
foot high berm around the perimeter of the lake was chosen as the solution. This means
having to lower the lake's surface three feet and building an earth berm in the area of
the existing lake. In other words, there will be a berm encircling the entire lake and
dam. When the lake is lowered three vertical feet, the same amount of surface area
should remain as is existing in the lake. However, the contours of the lake are unknown
since no maps are available. Mr. Elrod concluded bY stating that this proposal has been
discussed and is supported according to Mr. Johnson, the'representative for the Four
Seasons Homeowners Association.
Mr. Johnson'was present and stated that the residents he contacted were in agreement
with the alternate plan as summarized by Mr. Elrod.
Mr. Elrod then summarized project #4.26, the Bennington Road Channel, which had been
reserved pending a further study by his department. Mr. Elrod pointed out Bennington
Court and the creek in the subject area. The proposal is to save as many of the existing
trees between the homes and creek as possible and to move the creek back from the homes
because of a very steep embankment in some cases. With this approach, there will be a
gentle slope from the channel back up to the trees where grass can be grown as well as
prevent channel erosion from undermining the roots of the trees. Mr. Elrod said the
problem in the area is caused by the existing sewer lines, and because a pipe large
enough to carry a ten-year storm cannot be threaded. With that being the problem, concrete
lined, grout lined, and rip-rap lined channels were examined. Of those three solutions,
the most economical was the rip-rap channel. However, the residents objected to this
solution due to the size and appearance of same. The residents prefer a smaller channel;
one similar to the channel at Maymont Park in Richmond. The residents also prefer that
the creek retain its natural look as opposed to anything else being built. Mr. Elrod
said he feels the residents unanimously favor the grouted, rip-rap channel. In conclusion,
Mr. Elrod said that grouting the rip-rap will make the channel on Bennington Road smaller
and smoother as well as decreasing the width and depth of same, but. will increase the
cost with that technique.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if any trees will have~beremoved for the two projects (4.24 and
4.25) involving the Berkeley Storm Sewer. Mr. Elrod said some will have to be removed
but attempts will be made to save some of the larger trees. The storm sewer will be at
the grade of the existing creek. Therefore, there is not a great deal .of grading, but
rather filling back on top of the pipe. Mr. Elrod felt one of the reasons the residents
Want to maintain the pipe is due to the buffer provided between the rear of the homes in
Berkeley and Shopper's World.
Mr. Lindstrom said he understands the request tonight is only to amend the Comprehensive
Plan to include an urban drainage improvements plan with projects prioritized and the
funding aspects of same to be discussed at a later date. Mr. Tucker said that is correct.
The amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and prioritizing the projects is necessary in
order that the staff will have some guidance to require improvements in the subject areas
as development occurs. Mr. Elrod said although financing is not a part of the action, he
would like to emphasize that financing for some of the projects is to be derived from
developer contributions. When site plans are submitted each month, it seems that there
are at least one or two plans involving these proJ.ect areas. Some projects currently
under construction have been approved by the Planning Commission with the condition that
the developer contribute funds to a regional basin. An agreement has already been made
with some of these developers that if the Board and Planning Commission decide against
the regional detention basin, then the developers will build on-site detention basin
facilities. In conclusion, Mr. Elrod said he hoped as many as possible of the projects
presented can be approved in order that the ongoing program can continue.
May 2, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Timothy P. Near, representing the Bennington
Road residents, affected .by the Bennington Road area Channel project, was present and
read the following letter dated April 27, 1984:
"Subject:
County of Albemarle Urban Drainage
Report (February i, 1984)
Project 4.26, Bennington Channel
Maynard Elrod
County Engineer
Albemarle County
David Bowerman
Planning Commission
Albemarle County
We the undersigned, have the following concerns about the~present!y
proposed project number 4.26 (Bennington Channel):
1. The channel will be an eyesore.
The stream is very close to our homes and our decks overlook it. The
stream is the dominating feature of our back yards. The proposed
channel is a straight, eleven foot wide, stone drainage ditch. It
does not have grouted walls. The normal flow of water is just a trickle
and will not be visible as it will flow beneath and between the channel
stone. We will lose all semblence of a stream in our back yard.
This would lower the value of adjacent properties.
One solution that we, the undersigned, would find acceptable is a design
that incorporates the following features:
1. A channel that maintains the present course of the stream.
2. A channel that has smooth walls of grouted stone.
A channel that is no larger than approximately two feet deep,
four feet wide at the bottom and six feet wide at the top.
Enclosed are some photographs of a channel in Maymont Park, Richmond,
that has features 2 and 3. These photos are enclosed to help illustrate
what we desire for the Bennington Channel.
We believe that a channel with the features mentioned above will:
1. Solve the erosion problems in our yards.
2. Be a safe size.
3. Help preserve the aesthetic value of our yards.
4. Allow our yard areas and trees to be preserved.
We do not feel that minor flooding of the area immediately next to the
stream during rare, very heavy rain is a problem. It will not cause
erosion and the flooding will occur only on the side of the stream away
from our homes.
Before our approval of a specific plan for Bennington Channel we need
to know the following:
1. The size and location of the channel.
2. The type of material that will be used to build the channel.
3. The cost of the channel and the source of funds to cover this cost.
The location of the area(s) that will be used to bring construction
equipment and material to the stream.
Sincerely yours,
(Signed by the following persons)
Diane L. Near & Timothy P. Near
Paul & Mary Elizabeth Smith
Charles & Laura Read
Philip & Theresa Koren
Michael & Anna Cronin
308 Bennington Rd.
304 Bennington Rd.
300 Bennington Rd.
316 Bennington Rd.
312 Bennington Rd."
Next to speak was Mr. Bill Hartman, resident of the second townhouse from the lake
in Four Seasons. Mr. Hartman said many of the residents have not heard about the proposal
summarized by Mr. Elrod regarding the three foot berm surrounding the lake. He personally
objects to the proposal due to the removal of many trees for the construction and wildlife
being disturbed as well. He expressed surprise that the findings of the Planning Commission
were not read this evening because he understood the Planning Commission agreed with the
homeowners objection to the draining of the lake for use as a detention basin. Also, one
of the recommendations of the Commission was to survey the lake in order that the actual
depth could be determined due to severe siltation at one end of the lake. Mr. Hartman
said if the lake were lowered three feet, there would be mud exposed for 150 feet.
Therefore, he felt this would result in a muddy detention basin rather than the beautiful
existing lake.
May 2, 1984 [Regular Night Meeting)
!3.$
An unidentified gentleman spoke next regarding the Bennington (Woods) channel. He
has lived in the area for four years and is familiar with the problems. He has an alternate
proposal to the one presented by Mr. Elrod, which he does have in written form tonight.
When development occurred at Georgetown Court, the drainage problems began on Bennington
Road. Mr. Davis, the developer, planned to have multi-family dwellings on Georgetown
Court (behind Bennington Road), but instead built seven, single-family dwellings. Mr.
Davis, by requirement of the County, piped runoff into the stream instead of building a
detention pond. This decreased the problems somewhat. He then noted that the problem
with drainage begins where the sewer pipe lies between the third and fourth home on
Bennington Road. He pointed out that with this pipe, the storm stream volume doubles and
that is the key problem with erosion; specifically, where the stream turns shortly after
that influx of water and there is a very deep hole with some severe erosion under large
trees. The hole is about six to eight feet deep and at least three feet under the trees.
These are relatively shallow banks with lots of rocks and there is no erosion, other than
at this one point. Two trees constrict the stream before same opens up again and there
is erosion at that point under a tree. He further noted that the only place that is
f~oo~ingLis atLthe culvert under Solomon Road because the culvert is too small to carry
the water. He noted his feeling that a new channel is not necessary because there is not
a flooding problem, but rather an erosion problem. During his residency in the subject
area, the stream has only risen above the banks once and that was because of the small
pipe underneath the road. If the erosion problem is corrected where the pipe comes into
the stream, and the undercutting of the trees is Corrected, the existing problem would be
corrected. In theory, he felt the stream could hold a lot more water and the banks are
of a sufficient height to handle same as long as the banks are protected. This appears
to be a more economical solution to the problems. This would cost about $6,000 or less
instead of the expense involved with a new channel as presented by Mr. Elrod. This
correction would solve the erosion problem and be economical for the County as well as
preserving the aesthetic value of the stream.
Mr. Jeff Deavers, resident of Four Seasons, spoke next regarding the Four Seasons
Detention Basin. Mr. Deavers said when the proposal of Mr. Elrod was initially presented,
same did not appear to be a bad solution. However, having heard the comments of Mr.
Hartman regarding the larger area involved and-~ removal of some trees, he is now
uncertain of Mr. Elrod's proposal. Mr. Deavers also commented that only a few residents
of Four Seasons are present this evening because at the Planning Commission meeting last
night they were led to believe that any alternative solution had to be presented to the
Planning Commission first. Therefore, he did not want the Board to get the idea that the
residents are not concerned due to the insignificant number of persons present this
evening.
Mr. Tucker clarified that the Planning Commission took no action on either the Four
Seasons or the Bennington Area basins pending further study by the County Engineer. Mr.
Elrod is only presenting, for the Board's information, his study to date of the two
basins.
Speaking next was Mr. Chuck Read, resident of Bennington Road. Mr. Elrod has spent
a great deal of time on the Bennington Woods project and he feels a resolution has been
offered to the problem he has had with the surface water runoff. He did not favor an
underground measure and supported the idea of grouting. In conclusion, Mr. Read said he
is present this evening hoping for a decision to be made on this project.
Mrs. Anna Cronin, resident of Bennington Road, was also present. She noted appreciation
for Mr. Elrod's work on this matter and supported the alternate proposal of Mr. Elrod and
not the rip-rap. She purchased her home because of the creek and felt any rip rapping
would be ugly and dangerous. Mrs. Cronin said her property has the most erosion and a
lot of trees will be lost with the rip rap proposal. In conclusion, Mrs. Cronin supported
the idea of the Maymont Park technique.
Next to speak was Mrs. Diane Near, resident of Bennington Road. Mrs. Near stated
opposition to an eleven-foot wide stone drainage ditch or any proposal destroying the
aesthetic value of her yard and noted that she will allow no work on her property that
destroyed that value. She further noted that her property was purchased due to the
aesthetic value of the stream. Mrs. Near said she is also representing the Smiths' who
live at 304 Bennington Road who could not be present this evening. The Smiths' are also
opposed to a nongrouted drainage ditch of any size and further, do not support any design
that destroys the present aesthetic value of their yard. The Smiths' only problem is the
replacement of two or three rocks around the bridge of support and maybe some fill dirt
on the far side of the creek.
Mr. Near said his previous comments were made for the neighbors and he would now
like to represent himself. The residents have asked that the present course of the
stream be maintained because of possible loss of yard area if any other course is chosen.
A pipe comes in on the upstream side of his property where the course of the channel will
change direction, and if any other course is chosen, very little useful property will
remain. Therefore, Mr. Near said he too favors the same course for the stream. He
agreed that the channel has problem areas needing repair but the entire stream does not
necessarily need repairing. Mr. Near said the hole referred to earlier is on his property,
and the Cronin's, which is the next house, has a lot of erosion. These are the major
problem areas. He felt the ideal solution would be to fix the particular areas having
problems. He supported smooth walls of grouted stone in order to maxim~ze~, the capacity
of the stream and keep the water flow visible. Therefore, the channel size would be
minimized. Mr. Near then referred to a cross section he has proposed. His proposal is
the same width in the bottom, same depth and nearly half the size at the top as compared
to that of Mr. Elrod. If the walls were smooth, there would be a lot less turblence and
an increase in the effective flow area. Mr. Near said he is curious as to whether the
grouted channel he proposes would carry any less flow than the County's proposal. He
does not feel the minor flooding on the far side of the stream is a problem and there is
no problem with erosion in that area at this time. His proposed channel does not have
any less carrying capacity than the present stream. Mr. Near expressed concern that the
,134
May 2, 1984 (Regular Night Meetlng)
five homeowners on the stream will have to carry the burden of this expense so that
future developers can build more units. Mr. Near felt the County is really responsible
for the erosion problem since same is a result of approved and completed development in
the subject area. Therefore, Mr. Near felt the County should fix the problem, but not at
the homeowners expense. However, Mr. Near said he does not want a channel destroying his
yard. Mr. Near concluded by stating that although he has the worst problem area, he does
not want an eleven foot wide stone dry ditch, which would affect the majority of his
usable property, and he would prefer using the funds already provided for this improvement
and fixing the problem himself.
Next to speak was Mr. Andy Myer resident on Woodlake Drive in Four Seasons. He
referred to the drawing displayed by Mr. Elrod and asked if same is drawn to scale. Mr.
Elrod said approximately. Mr. Myer said there are two things of concern to him: 1) how
can modification of the lake to any certain depth be planned, and 2) if the drawing is to
scale, the area between the first channel at the end of the lake, which is the current
recreational area, and the proposal, cuts off about three-quarters of that area. Mr.
Myer was interested in knowing if any consideration had been given to sacrificing the
trees and what the remaining space would be.
Mr. Elrod then responded to the concerns and questions posed by the previous speakers.
One pertaining to the question of Mr. Hartman about the Four Seasons Basin and the proposed
three-foot high berm. He. was told by a landscape architect that the existing pines with
a two foot mound of earth would not be destroyed if the mound were to appear as natural
as possible. If there is to be a berm, the slope of the mound would be buried and efforts
are being made to preserve as many of the trees as possible. Also, mentioned was the
feeling that the first proposal, as well as the one he presented tonight, would become a
quagmire and that is not the intention at all. The upper end of the lake is already
silted and when the lake is lowered, that area will have to be graded out. The intentions
are to please the citizens in the Four Seasons development and still get as much volume
out of the lake as possible. The comment made by Mr. Hartman was that lowering the
surface of t-he lake would mean exposing mud for about 150 feet. Mr. Elrod said that
would not be the case and the estimate is that the entire lake surface will shrink in
between twelve or fifteen feet.
Mr. Elrod said in regards to the Bennington Woods channel, one of the speakers had
eluded to drainage coming across the street. Mr. Elrod said the streets should have had
curb and gutter installed when built. However, this was not done so there is not enough
room between the existing homes now for curb and gutter. The street has virtually no
shoulders and on the downhill side towards the houses in question, the flow crosses the
street from the homes on the high side and then flows through the yards and between the
homes on the low side. Without curb and gutter on the street, there will still be problems
during heavy rainfalls. Mr. Elrod said comments were also made that some areas have more
problems than other areas and mention was made of repairing those areas. He did not
object to that but when one area is repaired, another problem area will be created.
Speaking next was Mrs. Joan Graves, representing Mr. Andrews a property owner in
Berkeley. She noted that Mr. Andrews lives in the first house on Dominion Drive as one
enters Berkeley. Mr. Andrews is concerned that the problems with water are from areas
other than Four Seasons such as Wynridge, Birnam, Berkmar Drive, and Dominion Drive. The
water backs up because the culvert under Route 29 is not large enough to handle the
flooding problems. Mrs. Graves commended the staff and particularly Mr. Elrod, for the
proposals to help solve the drainage problems. She further noted that the Four Seasons
area needs more discussion and problem solving. In conclusion, Mr. Graves urged that the
Board consider the entire storm management plan.
With no one else present to speak for or against the amendments, the public hearing
was closed.
Mr. Lindstrom said comments made at public hearings he has attended over the last
seven years, attest to the fact that citizens have the erroneous impression that Albemarle
County and the Board of Supervisors have more control over development than is actually
the case. He then referred to State law which does not allow the County to say "no" to
developers, and the fact that generally, the wishes of a developer are accommodated.
Many of those speaking this evening live in an area that has experienced a great deal of
growth. The County is attempting to alleviate problems which have been created due to
the need of accommodating the many people who have moved into this area over the past
fifteen years. Mr. Lindstrom said deciding whether or not to allow urban sprawl throughout
the countryside or preserve the countryside and accommodate people in higher density
areas has been a major policy struggle for the Board. Mr. Lindstrom said he personally
is sorry about existing problems and the fact that solving some of these problems may
upset the status quo some people have enjoyed. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to
approve CPA-84-3 as recommended by the Planning Commission and to defer the two Priority
I projects, 4.21 Four Seasons Detention Basin and 4.26 Bennington Woods Subdivision
Channel, pending further study by the County Engineer. Mr. Lindstrom noted sensitivity
to the concerns eXpressed by the Bennington Road residents and hoped the accomplishments
of the problems can be done in a manner of maintaining the existing status quo. Mr.
Lindstrom extended appreciation for Mr. Elrod's efforts in trying to solve the problems.
Mr. Bowie seconded'the motion and emphasized that his second does not commit any
funding but rather only that the projects be included in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mrs. Cooke said she agrees with the statements made by Mr. Lindstrom and noted that
having been a life long resident of this community, she has seen Bennington Road grow
from a wooded area to its existing status. She also is concerned about the problems and
supports the motion in order that some attempt can be made to solve the problems. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Messrs. Fisher and Henley.
May 2, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
135
Agenda Item No. 7. Not to be Heard.
Agenda Item No. 7a. Status Report: Purchase of Bicentennial Center.
Mr. Agnor said he has been questioned about the status of purchasing the Bicentennial
Center and would like to report on same. The finance directors and attorneys for the
City and County have met several times regarding the financing of the project and the
legal documents involved. He plans to submit a financial plan for the purchase of the
Center and the leases involved for the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation and the
Visitors Bureau for review and approval by the Board in early June. The purchase of the
property hopefully can be accomplished by July 1, 1984. Mr. Agnor said there is a matter
concerning the contract which he questions, and he would like to discuss same in an
executive sessioni He.also has an item concerning a personnel matter to be discussed in
executive session; Mr. Agnor also noted that Mr. St. John has two legal matters to be
included in an executive session.
Agenda Item No. 8. Other Matters Not on the Agenda.
Mr. Bowie nominated and offered motion to appoint Mr. Charles A. Norford to the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority 314 Grant Committee. Mr. Way seconded the motion and
same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher and Henley.
Mrs. Barbara Herath, representingJthe Broadus Wood Parent Teacher Organization, was
present and noted her discouragement that the Board appears reluctant to move foward with
the renovation of Broadus Wood School. She said according to the Capital Improvements
Program, this project was rated as a number one school priority with construction to have
begun in 1982 and been completed in 1983. Mrs. Herath said the project has not even
begun. She informed the Board last year about the possible freeze being put on Literary
Fund money and urged immediate action. However, action did not occur, but the freeze
did. Now costs have increased on the project. She urged that the Board act immediately
on the project in order that same can begin this spring and she reemphasized that delay
is costing dearly. She further noted that the borrowing ceiling for the Literary Fund
has been reached for this project. Therefore, further delay will mean expenses having to
be borne from local sources and with higher interest rates as well. Mrs. Herath said
discussions with an official about Literary Fund money is that the full amount of the
loan will be available no later than January, 1985. She then recapped history about the
inadequacy of the existing school building, and problems involved with same. Mrs. Herath
noted frustration at the delay and was very concerned about the. effect of an inadequate
facility on the students.
Mr. Bowie said he has discussed this project with Mrs. Herath as well as his School
Board appointee and has requested that this be discussed at the May 9 Board meeting. As
has been explained, County funds would have to be spent before the Literary Fun~ money is
available. Therefore, he has requested that the Director of Finance present an analysis
of the County's cash flow at the meeting next week.
Not Docketed. At 9:32 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr.
Bowie, to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel matters and legal matters
relating to the Bicentennial Center purchase, Cason Site Plan, and Central Virginia
Electric Cooperative. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Messrs. Fisher and Henley.
Agenda Item No. 9.
adjourned.
The Board reconvened into open session at 10:10 P.M. and immediately