1983-11-09November 9~ 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
l' 4].9
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
November 9, 1983, at 11:00 A.M., Meeting Room #7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E.
Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 11:06 A.M.), and Miss Ellen V.
Nash.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R.
St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 11:07 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr.
Fisher. (Note: Meeting was delayed because this was the day after General Election.)
On behalf of the Board, Mr. Fisher welcomed Mr. Agnor back to work after his recenv ill-
ness and stated his pleasure at Mr. Agnor's return.
Agenda Item No. 2. Consent Agenda.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to accept and approve the
consent agenda as presented. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Item No. 2.1. Statement of Expenses for the month of October, 1983 for the Director of
Finance, Sheriff, and the Regional Jail, were approved as presented.
Item No. 2.2. Resolution to place street signs on State Route 855 to identify Faulconer
Drive, requested by Mr. Timothy M. Michel, of HEC Corporation, was adopted as follows:
WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify the
following roads:
Faulconer Drive (State Route 855) at the northwest corner of its
intersection with Old Ivy Road (State Route 601).
Faulconer Drive (State Route 855) at the northwest corner of its
intersection with the southbound off-ramp of the U.S. Route 29-250
Bypass; and
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the office
of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the State Depart-
ment of Highways and Transportation:
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the above
mentioned street signs.
Item No. 2.3(a). Letter dated August 30, 1983, from Robert M. Hauser, requesting that
Westfield Court, in Wynridge Subdivision, be taken into the State Secondary System. The
following resolution was adopted:
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 into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final
inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following road
in Phase Two in Wynridge Subdivision:
Beginning at station 0+18 a point common to the center-
line intersection of Westfield Court and the edge of
pavement of Westfield Road, thence in a northerly direction
490.78 feet to station 5+08.78 the end of the cul-de-sac
of Westfield Court in Wynridge Subdivision, Phase Two.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right-of-way
and drainage easemen5 along this requested addition as recorded in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 740, page 423.
Item No. 2.3(b). Letter from Roger H.B. Davis, Jr., dated November 5, 1982, requesting
that Dunmore Road in Waverly Subdivision be taken into the State Secondary System. The follow-
ing resolution was adopted:
420-
November 9, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
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 into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final
inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following road
in Waverly Subdivision:
Beginning at station 10+09 a point common with the
centerline intersection of Dunmore Road and the edge of
pavement of Route 614, thus in a southwesterly direction
2,348.45 feet to station 23+57.45, a point at the end of
the cul-de-sac on Dunmore Road in Waverly Subdivision.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 60 foot unobstructed right-of-way
and drainage easement along this requested addition as recorded in the Office of
the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 697, pages 372
and 382.
Item No. 2.3(c). Letter dated October 6, 1983, from Harold Davis, requesting that
Biltmore Drive in Bennington Terrace Subdivision be taken into the State Secondary System.
The following resolution was adopted:
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 into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final
inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following road
in Bennington Terrace Subdivision:
Beginning at station 0+00 a point common to the
centerline intersection of Biltmore Drive and the edge
of pavement of Georgetown Road (State Route 656), thence
in a southeasterly direction 302.00 feet to station
3+00.00, the end of the cul-de-sac of Biltmore Drive in
Bennington Terrace Subdivision.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation be, and is hereby guaranteed a 40 foot unobstructed right-of-way
and drainage easement ~long this requested addition as recorded in the Office of
the Clerk of Albemarle County in Deed Book 756, page 399.
Item No. 2.4. Report of the County Executive for the month of September, 1983 was
presented as information in accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-602.
Claims against the County which had been examined, allowed and certified for payment by
the Director of Finance and charged to the following funds for the month of September, 1983,
were also presented as information:
General County Fund
Federal Revenue Sharing Fund
Grant Projects Fund
Metro Planning Grant
Community Development Block Grant
County School Fund
TIPS
Secondary Advocates for Gifted Students
Cafeteria Fund
Joint Security Complex Fund
Textbook Rental Fund
Capital Improvement Fund
6,240,673.60
467,565.92
1,053,890.53
2,750.58
2,084.46
3,839,215.62
10,179.80
14.70
11,931.87
256,735.17
20,103.70
4~276.857.28
Grand Total
$16,182,003.23
Item No. 2.5. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of September,
1983, was presented in accordance with Section 63.1-52 of the Code of Virginia.
Item No. 2.6.. Letter dated October 10, 1983 from Centel re: State Corporation Commissior
Hearing on November 15, 1983 re: Investigation to consider the impact of Modified Final
Judgment in United States v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company and In the Matter of MTS
and WATS Market Structure on the provision of toll service in Virginia.
Item No. 2.7. Letter dated October 14, 1983 from H. Bryan Mitchell, Virginia Historic
Landmarks Commission stating the Commission is considering the Rugby Road - University Corner
as a historic district. Public hearing is scheduled for November 8, 1983 at 7:30 P.M. in
Charlottesville City Council Chambers.
November 9__a !983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Item No. 2.8. Letter dated October 19, 1983 from State Department of Education re: Grant
Award -- Transition Program for Refugee Children for the period October 1, 1983 to September 30
1984, in the amount of $771.90.
Item No. 2.9. Letter dated October 26, 1983 from George Long, Virginia Association of
Counties thanking the County for its contribution to the 350th Anniversary of County Government
Item No. 2.10. Letter dated October 25, 1983 from W. H. Muller, Jr., giving response to
County's letter regarding Certificate of Public Need for University of Virginia Medical Center'
Replacement Hospital Project. Dr. Muller stated in part: "We have been asked by the City also
to address proper stormwater drainage facilities because of the effects which you indicate if
they are inadequate. In addition, traffic circulation is being studied, and safe and conven-
ient access to the Hospital and parking areas for patients, visitors and emergency vehicles is
also being addressed by our consultants."
Item No. 2.11.
1983.
Planning Department's Monthly Building Activity Report for September,
Item No. 2.12. Letter dated November 4, 1983 from Centel with an order from the SCS
scheduling a hearing and directing public notice concerning an increase in rates granted Cente!
based upon a financial operating review. Public hearing is scheduled for February 15, 1984 at
10:00 A.M. in the Commission's Courtroom.
Item No. 2.13. Notice of a public hearing to be held on Wednesday, November 16, 1983, by
the Governor's Commission to increase Voter Registration.
Item No. 2.14. Memorandum from Nancy R. Little of McGuire, Woods and Battle, dated
November 3, 1983 entitled Tax Reform Act of 1983, Provisions Affecting Industrial Development
Bonds.
Item No. 2.15. Notice dated November 3, 1983, from William L. Bower, Distric~E~gi~aa~,
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, Indicating Willingness to Hold Public
Hearing on ~he channelization, signalization, widening and safety improvements at fourteen
locations in the City of Charlottesville.
Agenda Item No. 3. Approval of Minutes: August 3 and September 7, 1983.
Mrs. Cooke said she had read the minutes of August 3, 1983 and found no errors. Mr.
Lindstrom said he was not ready to approve the minutes of September .7, 1983. Motion was
offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Butler, to approve the minutes of August 3, 1983 as
presented. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 4(a). Request for relocation of State Route 697.
Mr. Gary M. Whelan, a land surveyor in Albemarle County, stated that his client, Mr. Jeff
Hale, has contracted to purchase a piece of property in southern Albemarle County and wishes to
relocate State Route 697 away from the residence on Linden Farm (part of parcel 4, Tax Map 98),
yet still within his property, entirely at Mr. Hale's cost. Mr. Hale requests the Board's
approval for this relocation and in addition wishes for the Board to approve the abandonment of
the present location of State Route 697.
Mr. Fisher referred to Mr. Whelan's letter dated October 25, 1983, which states that Mr.
Roosevelt of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has assured him of the
Department's willingness to issue a permit for relocation of the road and supports the addition
of the new roadway to the Secondary System provided the road is constructed in accordance with
approved plans. Mr. Roosevelt confirmed the position of the Highway Department adding that
after viewing the site he presented both Mr. Whelan and Mr. Hale with the standards to which
the road must be constructed. There are approximately thirty-one cars per day travelling over
the road, said Mr. Roosevelt and no present plans for further development along this road. Mr.
Roosevelt has submitted standards to Mr. Whelan and Mr. Hale for replacement of the existing
gravel road with a slightly wider gravel road along the new alignment. If the standards are
met and the request approved, Mr. Roosevelt has no hesitation about accepting the road into the
State system.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Whelan the purpose of the request. Mr. Whelan replied that the
present location of the road is very close to the main house and Mr. Hale would like to move
the road further away. Mr. Fisher asked how close the present road is to the house and Mr.
Whelan anSwered one hundred feet.
~ Mr. Tucker commented that while he has not viewed the site he has spoken with Mr. Roosevel
and sees no problem with shifting the road. Mr. Fisher wanted to clarify that no official
action would be taken by the Board to recommend acceptance of the road until it is approved by
the Highway Department after inspection. Mr. Fisher said the Board is being asked to give some
assurance that the Board will take formal action to request the road be taken into the system
after construction. Mr. Lindstrom stated he has no problem with this request considering Mr.
Roosevelt's agreement, the fact that the new road is within the boundaries of the property,
and since the owner agrees to bear the cost for relocation of the road.
November 9, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Miss Nash asked if the existing road is a part of the State system and Mr. Roosevelt
answered yes, adding that the section Mr. Hale wishes to build runs along an old road scar
where the road existed in the early nineteen hundreds. Mr. Roosevelt said that relocating the
road will open three or four hundred feet of property to roadway access.
Mr. ~Fisher wondered if Mr. Whelan had spoken to Mr. Sutherland, the adjacent property
owner about the proposal. Mr. Whelan said he had not. Mr. Fisher then asked if anyone was
present to speak about the application. There was no one present to speak. Mr. Fisher said hz
felt some notice should be give to adjacent property owners before the Board commits itself to
approving the request. Miss Nash offered motion to notify adjacent property owners regarding
this proposal and request comments from them. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley. Mr.
Fisher clarified his recommendation stating he wished for a letter to be mailed to adjacent
property owners explaining the request and the Board not take any action on the request and
defer discussion of same to the December 14 meeting. Mr. Whelan said that Mr. Sutherland is
the only property owner affected by his client's proposal. Mr. Fisher recommende~d:~tha~'; Mr.
Whelan notify affected property owners by telephone in addition to the mailing of a letter as
per Miss Nash's motion. With no further discussion, the roll was called and the motion to
notify Mr. Sutherland and defer the request to the December 14, 1983 meeting carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
(Note: Because the Board was ahead of schedule, the next agenda item was skipped
temporarily.)
Agenda Item No. 4(c). Request from Planning Commission to waive Section 5C of Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation Subdivision Street Requirements for new roads.
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., read the following staff report:
"Section 5C of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
Street Requirements
This policy indicates that streets constructed to their ultimate
design would be eligible for acceptance into the State secondary system.
Staff envisions problems with this policy, particularly in regard to new
roads as recommended by the CATS study:
1. Under the policy, the developer would be responsible not only for
his subdivision traffic but also any through traffic (which may not be
realized for decades, if at all). While Staff has not discussed this
issue with the County Attorney's office, it would seem that such a
requirement would be more difficult to justify than requiring a developer
to improve an existing road (i.e., Hylton case).
2. Strict adherence to the policy would deter development of urban
properties along proposed roadway alignments and could prove contrary to
the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. In most cases,
economic considerations would cause developers to avoid development under
the Comprehensive Plan.
3. Adherence to the policy could result in no incremental road construc-
tion. Staff would recommend that the developer be required to construct
a road to serve his subdivision traffic with adequate allowances to permit
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation upgrading to the
ultimate design to carry through traffic at a later date. In this fashion,
at least partial construction of new CATS roadways could be realized with
development.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 11, 1983,
voted unanimously to recommend that the Board of Supervisors request ~he
Highways and Transportation Commission to waive Section 5C of the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation's Subdivision Street Requirements
for new roads as recommended in the modified Charlottesville Area Transpor-
tation Study. Such waiver would be limited to the requirement of roadway
construction to the ultimate design for acceptance into the State secondary
system, based upon finding that the proposed subdivision development does
not occasion the need for such design. Nothing stated herein shall be deemed
to limit the requirement of reservation, dedication, horizontal or vertical
alignment, limitation of access, or other design feature or requirement
necessary to-insure ultimate roadway design."
Mr. Tucker stated there are two or possibly three roadways which could be affected: in
particular, the proposed connector from the Meadow Creek Parkway northward to Hollymead; the
Greenbrier Drive extension between Whitewood Road and Hydraulic Road, and a section on Old
Lynchburg Road (Route 631) to by-pass that bad curve. Most of these proposed new roads are
four-lane divided but the Staff is concerned that as development occurs along these proposed
rights-of-way, the development itself may not necessitate a four-lane highway being const-
ructed. Mr. Tucker said the staff recommends that roads be constructed at least as a two-lane
highway as this would allow partial roadway construction. He explained that because these new
roads are shown in the adopted CATS study, Highway Department policy dictates acceptance of
only the ultimate design (four lane divided). The staff is concerned that a developer could
carry a burden of this kind and would avoid developing in those areas. The ultimate responsi-
bility of building the roads would then rest with the County and the State.
November 9, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
423
Mr. Fisher explained that the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study indicates where ne~
roadways will be constructed and in the areas in question these roads are shown as four-lane .~
divided in the year 2000. If Highway Department policy stands as written, no piece of any of
these proposed roads will be constructed as development occurs because the development is far
too expensive for any individual developer to consider. Mr. Fisher said this recommendation of
the Planning Staff and Planning Commission calls for construction of these roads as at least
two-lane rather than f0ur-lane. This would not eliminate reservation of right-of-way or
dedication of the road ultimately as four-lane. Mr. Tucker said that dedication of right-of-wa
can be required so that no building could tame place in the area where the four-lane facility
would be located. Mr. Roosevelt stated he supported Mr. Tucker's request.
Miss Nash wondered how, under the Hylton case, a developer can be forced to build a
larger pavement than that required by his development. Mr. Fisher said this is part of the
problem. The Highway Department will not accept the road into the State system unless it is
built to its ultimate design. If the road is built to less than the ultimate design, and as
development occurs, the road eventually would need to be upgraded from two-lane to four-lane,
the Board has no authority to require at that point that the developer upgrade a road off-site
from his development. This, said Mr. Fisher, is the Highway Department's concern. Motion was
then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Butler, to adopt the following resolution:
WHEREAS Section 5C of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transpor-
tation Street Requirements indicates that streets constructed to their ultimate
design will be eligible for acceptance into the State Secondary System, but the
staff of the Albemarle County Department of Planning and Community Development
envisions problems regarding this policy and new roads recommended in the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Study, as follows:
1. A developer is responsible, under this policy, not only for the.
traffic created by his subdivision, but also for through traffic,
although that traffic may not be realized for decades; if at all.
2. Strict adherence to the policy will deter development of urban
properties along proposed roadway alignments and therefore would
prove contrary to the goals and objectives of the County's Compre-
hensive Plan.
3. Adherence to the policy could result in no incremental road
construction; staff would recommend that the developer be required
to construct a road to serve his subdivision traffic with adequate
allowances to permit upgrading by the Highway Department to the
ultimate design to carry through traffic. If this were done, at
least partial construction of new CATS-recommended roadways would be
realized along with new development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, does hereby request that the Virginia Highway and Transpor-
tation Commission authorize the Resident Engineer to waive Section 5C of the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation Subdivision Street
Requirements for new roads as recommended in the modified Charlottesville-
Albemarle Transportation Study; such waiver to be limited to the requirement
of roadway construction to the ultimate design for acceptance into the State
Secondary System based upon finding that the proposed subdivision development
does not occasion the need for such design, further, nothing stated herein shall
be deemed to limit the requirement of reservation, dedication, horizontal or
vertical alignment, limitation of access, or other design feature or requirement
necessary to insure roadway design.
Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 4(b). Appeal: Noble Preliminary Plat. (Preliminary Plat showing Parcel
A, a portion of Parcel 75, Tax Map 57, located off State Route 676, Samuel Miller District,
drawn by William S. Roudabush, Inc., dated August 12, 1983, revised September 20, 1983.)
Mr. Tucker presented the following Staff Report:
"Location:
Acreage:
Zoning:
History:
West side of Route 676 near Glenair Subdivision.
10.0 acres.
RA, Rural areas.
September 20~ 1971 - The Planning Commission approved a
preliminary plat for "Spring Hill Estates" involving a
restricted road to serve four lots.
The plat included existing parcels 75, 75C and SA.
75 was not subdivided as originally proposed.
Parcel
Proposal:
To divide one, ten acre parcel on an existing private road,
leaving about 31.4 acres in residue.
Reason for Planning Commission Review: Preliminary plat approval. The
applicants' are requesting that the Planning Commission permit
administrative approval of the final plat.
4: 4
November 9, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Topography of the Area: Rolling to steep.
~ondition of Roads Serving Proposal: ?Route 676 between Route 771 (Glenaire)
and Route 678 carries 174 vehicle trips per day and is listed
as tolerable.
Watershed Impoundment: South Rivanna.
Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: Rural area 3. The Plan recommends one
dwelling per ten acres in impoundment watersheds.
School Impact: Slight.
T.ype Utilities: Individual well and septic.
Staff Comment: The applicants wish to purchase ten acres for their
primary residence. The residue acreage includes a 55 foot wide
pipestem to Route 676 and contains about 31.4 acres. The ten-acre
parcel will have private road access across an existing 55 foot
right-of-way and proposed 50 foot right-of-way. There are
presently two property owners who use the existing road. One of
the property owners (Parcel 5A) has State road frontage on
Route 676. The other owner (Parcels 75A, B & C) maintains his
dwelling and a rental unit which both use the private road.
Therefore, a total of six parcels, including the proposed ten-acre
parcel and residue acreage, will use the private road. The road is
partially paved. The County Engineer has given preliminary approval
of the road. There is no maintenance agreement at this time.
Health Department approval has been received.
The final plat must show an additional five-foot strip to be dedi-
cated along Route 676 to bring the total to 25 feet from the center-
line as noted on the plat.
Development rights of the parent parcel are being divided so that
Parcel A will have two rights and the residue will retain three rights.
The notes should be clarified to read: "Parcel A may be divided into
two lots and the residue may be divided into three lots less than
twenty-one acres subject to Planning Commission approval".
Staff has received five letters from residents of the area expressing
concern. Residents are concerned that more than one dwelling on ten
acres will violate Section 18-36(b)(5) of the Subdivision Ordinance
which requires the density of private road subdivisions to comply with
the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. This proposal does not
violate this requirement since the Commission would have to approve any
further division or a second dwelling on Parcel A. The assignment of
development rights alone does not constitute any approval. The
applicant should be made aware that further use of the property would
require a waiver.
The major problem with this proposal is the entrance. The Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation is recommending that the exist-
ing entrance be upgraded to a private street commercial entrance with
300 feet of sight distance and a paved entrance 40 feet from the edge of
the pavement, but no deceleration lane. The entrance presently has about
80 feet of sight distance to the north due to a fence and hedgerow
located about 22 feet from the centerline of Route 676. The State right-
of-way in this area is 40 feet maximum. Therefore, the applicant would
need the adjacent owner's permission to remove the obstruction and a site
easement to maintain the vegetation. There is a stone wall defining the
entrance which the Highway Department has said can probably remain.
Sight distance to the south is adequate, 325 feet except for overhanging
branches within the highway right-of-way.
Staff is recommending improvement of the entrance as a condition of
final approval. There is a residue of about 31 acres which could add
three residences on the existing entrance. The Chairman of the Board
of Supervisors has expressed concern about the residue and about
improving the road a little at a time.
The Planning Commission should clarify whether or not t~he final plat can
be approved administratively.
Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met:
a)
b)
c)
d)
County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement;
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a
private street commercial entrance;
Clarify notes on plat regarding development rights;
Final County Engineer approval of the private road."
November 9, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Tucker stated that the Planning Commission, on September 27, 1983, approved the plat
subject to the same conditions recommended in the staff's report. He referred to a letter date(
October 7, 1983, from Mr. Bruce Rasmussen on behalf of his clients, appealing the decision of ':
the Planning Commission for the appellants, Harriett and Julian Noble and Ertel L. Whitt, who
feel the Planning Commission imposed unreasonable and unnecessary conditions for approval of
the plat.
Mr. Fisher asked how many people are presently using the existing road. Mr. Tucker an-
swered that there are three property owners using the existing road. Should approval be
given, the total number of property owners could increase to six. Mr. Tucker said that a
maintenance agreement would be required as a condition of approval prior to the signing of the
contract, however the matter before the Board today deals with the commercial entrance require-
ment of the Highway Department and not the specifications of the private road itself.
Mr. Fisher called for a represenvative of the applicants. Mr. John Little, attorney,
explained that the appeal was generated by Planning Commission approval of the preliminary
subdivision plat subject to conditions which his Clients feel are unreasonable and unnecessary.
Mr. Little referred to the condition requiring Department of Highways and Transportation
approval of the private entrance which demands upgrading the entrance to a private street
commercial entrance with three hundred feet of sight distance. Mr. Little said that at present
there is only eighty feet of sight distance to the north because of a fence and hedgerow
Hocated twenty-two feet from the centerline of the road. Permission of the adjacent owner
would have to be obtained in order to remove the obstruction, and a maintenance easement would
be required to prevent re-growth of the hedgerow. The applicants feel this is an unreasonable
and unrealistic requirement for this area of the county. Also, complicance with this condition
would be impossible as the existence of the fence and hedgerow is out of their control. Mr.
Little said this is an existing driveway which receives low, grade usage by two landowners. The
proposed subdivision is being made for one additional dwelling and this would not substantially
increase the traffic. No further subdivision of the property is contemplated. The proposal
would not violate the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan in that one unit per ten acres would
still be maintained. Mr. Little stated the problem is not that traffic along Route 676 is
hindered from seeing cars exiting from the private road, but that traffic entering Route 676
might have difficulty because of the existing brush. He feels other alternatives, such as a
convex mirror, or a sign on the road indicating a hidden entrance should be considered. Mr.
Little said the main road is not heavily travelled and the requirement of a commercial entrance
is excessive since the area is rural Albemarle County. On behalf of his clients, Mr. Little
requests that the condition be modified in such a way that his clients are able to comply.
Mr. Fisher opened the discussion to the public and adjacent property owners.
Mrs. Prudence Thorner, an adjacent property owner was the first to speak. Mrs. Thorner
lives on Route 676 south of the entrance to the driveway. She pointed our that while there
have, to her knowledge, never been any accidents at that intersection, pulling out into the
intersection is a risky maneuver. Mrs. Thorner expressed her added concern that while there is
only one house proposed for development at present, it seems obvious there will be further
development of the remaining acreage. Should this occur the private road would become extremel
"busy" with possibly twelve or thirteen vehicles per day using the road.
Mr. Brian Bouton, a property owner living north of the intersection, stated his property
comes within twenty-two feet of the road. He feels the exit from~the private road onto Route
676 is very dangerous because the entrance is well hidden from the north. Mr. Bouton said it
is very difficult to avoid hitting someone exiting from the private road onto Route 676 unless
one is extremely careful. His concern regards further development of the area in the event the
present owner sells the property and the increased danger this could place on the intersection.
Mr. Bouton said he does not object to one house but would definitely object to "any others."
He stated that he is the owner of the property on which the fence and hedgerow stand and he
does not wish to sacrifice twenty to thirty feet of his pasture in order to gain the required
sight distance.
Mr. Little again pointed out that any further subdivision in the area would require approw
of the County and remains under the control of the governing body. Mr. Fisher said the problem
lies in determining at what point one more division will require road improvement to accom-
modate the additional traffic. Mr. Little feels the problem can be remedied to satisfy the
safety factor without necessitating removal of the fence and hedgerow. He again mentioned the
placement of highway signs and a convex mirror as an alternative measure to ensure the safety
of the intersection.
With no one else present to address the issue, the matter was placed before the Board.
Mr. Fisher stated that in the past the Board viewed many such requests and has taken a fairly
similar view that when private roads empty onto state roads same must be upgraded, the '
entrances must be adequate and maintenance agreements must be implemented. He feels the action
of-the Planning Commission is reasonable. Mr. Fisher said he feels this should be done now
instead of when there is only one lot left. He feels it is easier for the Board to take this
position now.
Mrs. Cooke said she had no problem with the recommendations of the Planning Commission and
supported the conditions they had set down. Miss Nash wondered who would bear the cost of the
road improvement. Mr. Fisher answered the responsibility would be borne either by the indi-
vidual selling the lot or he will attempt to secure a maintenance agreement whereby others will
assist in this project. Mr. Payne stated that the Statute requires the responsibility to be
borne by whoever desires the subdivision.
There being no motion to change the recommendation as to the conditions of approval set
down by the Planning Commission, the action of the Planning Commission stands.
426
November '9~ 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 4(d). Urban Area Transit Needs Summary.
Mr. Tucker explained that one of the work activities initiated in FY 82-83 by the City of
Charlottesville for the Metropolitan Planning Organization was study of transit needs in the
Charlottesville-Albemarle County urbanized area. This study was prepared by JHK Associates of
Alexandria. The primary objectives of this study were: identifying transportation needs in
the urbanized area with special emphasis on the elderly and handicapped, and identifying ways
to coordinate transportation services in the area among the three providers, Charlottesville
Transit Service (CTS), University Transit Service (UTS), and Jefferson Area United Transpor-
tation, Inc. (JAUNT). Eight transit target areas in Albemarle County served as the primary
areas-of study. Of these eight, four areas were identified as having the greatest potential
for short-term public transportation service. Three transit routes were recommended in the
report as follows:
Hydraulic-Rio Road/Meadows-Hessian Hills - The proposed route would alter existing
CTS Route 5 and would alternate every hour between service to Greenbrier and new
service to the residential areas along Route 29 North during off-peak hours. The
new route would proceed up Barracks Road to Georgetown Road, back down Hydraulic
Road to Commonwealth Drive, cross over into Berkeley and Four Seasons and make the
loop around the Albemarle Square Shopping Center, Fashion Square and then follow
the same path back to Barracks Road Shopping Center. Operating expenses for this
route during FY 84 would cost Albemarle County approximately $3,500. By FY 88,
this figure would increase to approximately $18.000.
Southwood-Country Green-Sherwood-Manor-Willoughby - The proposed route starts at
Southwood Mobile Home Court proceeds along Old Lynchburg Road serving CoUntrH Green
Apartments, Sherwood Manor, then into the City looping around the University and
back. The County's share for this route during FY 84 would be approximately $3,300
which would increase to almost $27,000 by FY 88.
Blue Ridge Hospital/Piedmont Virginia Community College - The current express
shuttle service would remain intact. However, ridesharing (i.e., carpool, vanpool)
promotions by JAUNT would be increased at Blue Ridge and further efforts would be
made to incorporate P.V.C.C. into the JAUNT ridesharing base. Operating expenses
for this during FY 84, to the County would be approximately $3,200. This would
increase until by FY 88 the cost would be approximately $4,200.
Mr. Tucker said the remaining transit targe~ areas should be reevaluated as development
increases in those areas. In addition, Mr. Tucker presented a list of other needs ascertained
from current and projected conditions.
Seminole Square - With the construction of Seminole Square Shopping Center just
inside the City line along Route 29, some bus re-routings will be justified.
?antops - Current employment or population is not yet large enough to support
regular service. About one-third of State Farm's 650 employees live within
current or proposed CTS route areas. As further commercial development occurs,
a peak-period bus service to and from downtown or other activity centers should
be considered. As residential development occurs, mid-day service may be
feasible.
Old Ivy Road/Huntington Village - This area could potentially be served by the
same bus which would serve the Southwood-Country Green areas south of the City.
Rio Road East of Southern Railway/Village Square/Stonehenge - This area will
develop further. Because of the presence of several lower-income households,
its transit potential will increase, especially once the McIntire Road extension
is completed.
Willoughby - Should Willoughby reach its full development ~otential (609 units -
currently 106), a restructuring of CTS Route 4 could be accomplished to serve
this neighborhood.
~Northfields, Woodbrook, Carrsbrook, and Westmoreland Subdivisions - The areas do
not currently show a good transit potential.
Mr. Tucker said the County has obtained a grant from the Urban Mass Transit Administratio~
through the Metropolitan Planning Organization. This will allow the staff of the County
Community Development Division to prepare a report in FY 84 on how to provide the most effecti~
transit service to the areas identified and also evaluate various methods of financing the
County might pursue. Mr. Tucker concluded that he had presented this report merely for infor-
mational purposes but would be glad to answer any questions the Board members might have. 'The
Planning Commission, Mr. Tucker said, is very interested in these proposals and is waiting for
the report in the Spring of 1984. Mr. Fisher commented that he too would be very interested ix
the report, particularly regarding the financing of any proposals which come forth.
Agenda Item No. 4(e). Vacation: Ashmere Subdivision.
November 9, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Melvin E. Gibson, attorney for First Virginia Bank-Central, briefly outlined the
history of this matter. He explained that the developer, Mr. Russell M. Lafferty, had obtained
t~e original subdivision approval and was obligated to build.the road, however, Mr. Lafferty,
on March 7, 1983, went into bankruptcy. After the County advertised the first time to abandon
the subdivision plat, arrangements were made with the bankruptcy court to create an escrow fund
to finance the construction of the road; the costs in excess of the bond that was held by the
County and which was available for this purpose. First Virginia Bank is the lienholder of this
property and consented to the sale of one lot at a substantially reduced price in order to
create the fund to complete the road. The lot was sold, and as far as First Virginia Bank
knew, the road was completed. Mr. ~ibson stated that the Lafferty matter is still in bank-
ruptcy ourt; three weeks ago, First Virginia Bank petitioned the bankruptcy court to lift the
automatic stay with respect to the property in order to permit a foreclosure which is now
scheduled for November 21, 1983. Mr. Gibson requested that the Board again defer action on
this vacation until after the foreclosure to enable the Bank to maximize the return on its
security and to enable the ultimate purchasers to make a decision about the road at that time.
Mr. Fisher suggested that the Board not take action on the Ashmere matter until the Bank
is ready and returns with a new appeal. Mr. Payne stated that the Board could do this. Since
the developer did not complete the road according to plans, the county has two options: the
county can complete the road, have someone else complete the road, or the subdivision plat can
be vacated. Mr. Payne said that in March, 1983 the County attempted to obtain the money to
complete the road. This necessitated getting authority from the bankruptcy court to sue. Mr.
Payne said that if the Board decides to abandon the subdivision plat prior to the Bank's
foreclosure sale, the purchase price of the property would be affected. Mr. ?ayne said he
spoke with Mr. Leroy Hamlett (attorney for the bankruptcy court) earlier, and Mr. Hamlett
stated that the money for the road construction is in his trust account. Mr. Payne's concern
is that the longer the matter is delayed the less adequate the money becomes.
Mr. Fisher asked the size of the parcel. Mr. Gibson answered that there are twelve lots
of approximately eight acres each. He assured the Board the Bank will take action and stated
the delays have been caused by the developer and the bankruptcy courT. He explained that the
plan filed by the developer required the Trustee to sell the property, however, the Trustee
took no action. This necessitated First Virginia Bank appealing to the Bankruptcy Court to
allow the bank to make the attempt to sell. After obtaining permission to sell the property,
the bank took immediate action and sent out foreclosure notices.
Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, explained that last year, bids were taken to have the
entire length of road reconstructed, however, there were not sufficient funds to complete the
work. Consequently, Dillard Construction Company was awarded a contract for partial completion
of the road, based on the amount of money available from the bond. The longer the matter is
delayed, the less likely Dillard Construction Company will be willing to do the work for the
bid price. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Elrod if he felt the plat should be vacated. Mr. Elrod again
expressed his concern that the money will not be sufficient for completion of the project.
Mr. Payne suggested granting the bank a deferral for an appropriate period of time pro-
vided the Bank is willing to guarantee construction of the road in accordance with the plans
approved by the County. Mr. Elrod commented that this is just a gravel road, but there are
significant drainage problems and while there is $6,000 in the bond, he fears this will not be
adequate.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that Mr. Gibson determine if the bank is willing to guarantee
construction of the road and to place this matter back on the agenda later in the month.
Should the bank be unwilling to make the guarantee, then Mr. Lindstrom said he would be con-
cerned about deferring the issue much longer. Mr. Fisher said he would like some response to
Mr. Payne's suggestion by the next Board meeting on November 16, 1983. Mr. Payne recommended
that the deferral and the guarantee from the bank be coincident. If the matter is deferred
until January of 1984, then Mr. ?ayne feels the road should be completed by that date also.
Mr. Fisher suggested that Mr. Gibson attempt to work this out with the bank by Wednesday,
November 16.
Motion was made by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to defer action on the vacation
of Ashmere subdivision until November 16, 1983 at which time Mr. Gibson should return with the
bank's response regarding its willingness or unwillingness to guarantee construction of the
road according to the approved plans. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher~, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 4(f). Other Highway 'Matters.
Mrs. Cooke mentioned to Mr. Roosevelt that she had received several calls from individuals
in Hessian Hills and the Bennington Road area r~garding the fatality on Barracks Road several
days prior. She wondered what could be done to prevent further occurrences of this kind. Mr.
Roosevelt said that the fatality to which Mrs. Cooke referred, while tragic, was an unusual
accident and had occurred under unique conditions. Mr. Roosevelt said he will review the
situation with the traffic engineer to determine what can be done in the way of signing because
he feels sure a traffic signal is not warranted. Mr. Roosevelt explained that one of the
conditions needed for a traffic signal is accidents of an angle-type nature. Traffic signals,
while safeguarding against this type of accident, tend to increase rear end collisions. Based
on accident studies, the area in question indicates no history of angle-type accidents and he
feels the placement of a traffic signal would create problems for the large volume of traffic
using Barracks Road.
428
November 9, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Lindstrom referred to that same area of Barracks Road noting the confusion during
rush hour with traffic coming off the Route 250 By-pass ramp attempting to left-turn across
Barrack's Road at rapid speeds. Mr. Lindstrom noted that the right lane turning only into
Park D~ive is very confusing. He suggested that Mr. Roosevelt review this problem also. Mr.
Roos~.velt said this came about during construction of the By-Pass in 1976. He said he Would
discuss this matter with the traffic engineer.
Mr. Henley called attention to an area on Route 810 just beyond Laurel Hills where the
road is washed out. He indicated there is a section of the road which contains quite a si
icant drop at the edge of the pavement. Mr. Roosevelt said he would look into the matter.
~ot Docketed. Mr. Fisher requested an executive session during lunch for a discussion of
Personnel matters. Motion to this effect was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom,
and at 12:21 P.M., roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
The Board reconvened into open session at 1:56 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 5. AHIP Quarterly Report.
Mr. Gary Olivieri presented slides showing the five completions of the first quarter of
1983-84, including two major rehabilitations both of which were funded primarily through
Charlottesville Housing Foundation loan funds. The slides were visualizations of the followin
report:
"FIRST QUARTER FISCAL YEAR 1983-1984
Jobs Completed:
Number of Families Served:
Number of Persons Served:
Percent Elderly
Percent Disabled
Percent Minority
5
35%
71%
Total Cost of Materials and Subcontracts:
Total Albemarle County Grants-To-Families:
$18,275.41
4,028.95
Average Cost of Materials and Subcontracts:
Average of five Albemarle County Grants-To-Families:
$ 3,655.00
8o5.8o
Number/Job Type of Completed Units
Job Type 1st Quarter Totals
Major Rehabs. 2 2
Minor Rehabs. 1 1
Repairs ~ ~
TOTALS 5 5"
Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing. Appeal: Clark Preliminary Plat. (Preliminary Plat
of a division of property owned by W. Donald and Agnes C. Clark, designated Tax Map 39,
Parcels 5 and 13C, White Hall District, Albemarle County, Virginia, drawn by W. Morris Foster,
dated September 18, 1983.)
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. presented the following staff report:
"Location:
W. Donald and Agnes C. Clark Preliminary Plat (Saddle
Hollow Farm). Off the end of Route 684 near Mint Springs
Park in Crozet. Tax Map 39, Parcels 13C and 5. White
Hall Magisterial District.
Acreage:
66.66 acres.
Zoning:
RA, Rural Areas.
~Proposal:
To create five parcels served by a private road, average
size 13.33 acres.
Reason for Planning Commission Review: Preliminary plat approval.
Topography of Area: Rolling to steep.
Condition of Roads Serving Proposal: Route 684 beyond Mint Springs Park
carries 63 vehicle trips per day and is listed as non-
tolerable. Route 684 is paved to within about one-half
mile of the property. State maintenance ends about 1200
feet from the property.
November 9, i9~3 (Regular Day Meeting)
Watershed Impoundment: South Rivanna and Beaver Creek.
Soils:
Chester, Unison, Parker, Braddock and Thurmont stony loam which
are all steep and shallow mountain soils.
Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: Rural Area III. One dwelZing unit per
ten acres recommended density in impoundment watersheds.
School Impact: Slight.
Type Utilities: Individual wells and septic systems.
Staff Comment: Health Department approval is not required for preliminary
plats. A soil scientist evaluation will be required prior to final
approval.
The proposed private road is presently a narrow, gravel surfaced road
which has _fairly easy grades. A total of five parcels currently use
this road between the end of State maintenance and the subject property.
Therefore, with this subdivision, ten parcels will use the portion of
the road between point A and point B.
The applicant proposes to upgrade the existing road between points
A and B to a 14 foot travelway as required by the Ordinance, with four
foot shoulders as required by the County Engineer. The applicant is
requesting relief from the Ordinance requirement of prime and double
seal.
The remainder of the road (from point B to point C) is subject to the
approval of the County Engineer for five lots or less. He is
requiring a 14 foot travelway with four inches of gravel surface. He
may permit short sections of less width to go around existing trees or
boulders. The County Engineer is recommending approval subject to:
County Engineer approval of road and drainage plans from
Route 684 to parcel 4. The portion of the road from Route
684 (point A) to the Young property (point B) will require
pavement, and
2) Issuance of an erosion control permit.
The fire official is requiring structures to be separated by one
hundred feet.
The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation is
recommending that no additional development occur at this site due to
inadequate access along Route 684. If there is to be development, a
private street commercial entrance will be required. The Highway
Department will require a paved entrance only if the private road is
to be paved.
Although most of the property contains slopes of 25 percent or
greater, there are adequate building sites on the proposed parcels,
ranging from 13 to 17 percent slopes.
The proposed subdivision complies with the ten acre recommended
density in the Comprehensive Plan.
Ail five development rights are being used in this subdivis±on.
Any further division will require a special use permit.
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have
been met:
ae
Health Department written approval based on a soil scientist
report;
Compliance with all private road provisions, including County
Engineer approval of road and drainage plans from Route 684 to
parcel 4;
Issuance of an erosion control permit;
County Attorney's approval of homeowners' documents;
Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation issuance of a
private street commercial entrance permit."
Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 18, 1983, approve~
the preliminary plat with the conditions recommended by the Staff and granted administrative
approval of the final plat.
Mr. Donald Clark was present and explained his reasons for requesting a waiver. Mr.
Clarke said the division of his property will increase the use of the road from three to a
total of nine parcels. He said the property will continue to be used in the same way. There
are six existing parcels, two are unimproved, two are year-round residences and two are
weekend cottages. Mr. Clark pointed out that the terrain in the area is very steep and
mountainous and a crawler tractor is necessary for snow removal; this would be very hard on a
prime and double sealed road.
430
November 9, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher wanted to clarify Mr. Clark's request and asked if he was asking specifically
for waiver of the Planning Commission's requiring prime and double seal treatment for the
private road. Mr. Clark answered in the affirmative. Mr. Tucker indicated that this require-
ment is under Condition l(b) of the Planning Commission's recommendations. Mr. Fisher asked iJ
this was made a condition because the number of people using the road exceeds the minimum
allowed under the private road ordinance. Mr. Tucker replied that when six or more parcels
exist on a private road, adherence to the specifications outlined in the Subdivision Ordinance
is required. Mr. Tucker explained that the County Engineer recommended a fourteen foot wide
roadway and four inches of stone from point B to point C; there was no recommendation for
and double seal on that section. However, on the section of road between points A and B,
are already more than six lots using that section. Therefore Mr. Clark must meet the specifi-
cations of the Subdivision Ordinance for private roads. Mr. Clark is seeking a waiver from
these regulations. Mr. Tucker said that specifications are left to the discretion of the
County Engineer when there are five or less parcels on a private road.
Mr. Tucker explained that State Route 684 is prime and double-sealed to just a short
distance past Mint Springs Park. The road then becomes gravel surfaced to the end of State
maintenance. From the end of State maintenance, private road provisions apply. These pro-
visions for the number of lots proposed to be served call for prime and double seal. Conse-
quently, the condition of the access to this property over Route 684 will be "pavement to
gravel" and then the internal road will be "pavement to gravel." Mr. Lindstrom asked the
length of unpaved surface on the state road. Mr. Clark answered that it is approximately
seven-tenths of a mile.
Mr. Maynard Elrod commented that if Mr. Clark were to pave the section of the private
road in question, the Highway Department would not be financially able to pave the remaining
portion of Route 684. Mr. Elrod referred to the problem of snow removal raised by Mr. Clark,
saying the Highway Department uses similar types of equipment to remove heavy snow from roads
and manages to do so without tearing up the pavement. Miss Nash wondered about the topography
of the road required to be hard-topped. Mr. Elrod replied that most of the road is on a fairl
gradual slope, although the topography around the area is fairly steep. Mr. Henley asked ab
the difference in cost between a gravel road, and a prime and double sealed road. Mr. Elrod
answered that it is approximatelY $16,000. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker if there are further
division rights on the lots in question. Mr. Tucker responded there are no further division
rights on the lots over which Mr. Clark has control. However, the other lots using this
private road still have five division rights each. Mr. Lindstrom commented that if the other
lots were divided a maintenance agreement would be required.
With no further comments, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the
Board.
Mr. Lindstrom expressed concern about waiving the private road requirements when he
cannot distinguish between this subdivision and like subdivisions where the applicant might
desire to save money. Mr. Lindstrom feels that with the potential for creating more lots on
this road, not enforcing this requirement at this point may be a regrettable action in the
future. He stated that he would like to adhere to the standards set by the Subdivision
Ordinance. Mr. Henley said he felt a gravel road would be just as good as a hard-topped road,
considering the location and the kind of use the road will receive. Miss Nash asked if the
road could be built to specifications so that sometime in the future it could be hard-topped.
Mr. Tucker replied that if the road is built to private road standards it could be hard-topped
later, but the road would obviously not be built according to State standards so could not be
taken into the State system. Mrs. Cooke noted that Mr. Elrod feels a gravel road is sufficient
and acceptable. Mr. Elrod acknowledged this and added that considering the existing traffic
along the road, gravelling would be perfectly suitable. However, if the other parcels were
divided creating additional traffic, a gravel road would not be sufficient.
Miss Nash offered motion to approve the Clark preliminary plat with waiver of the re-
quirement in condition l(b) as set down by the Planning Commission, that requires prime and
double seal pavement. Mr. Fisher restated the motion as follows: to amend the Planning
Commission's approval in condition l(b) to include the. granting of the waiver to the Planning
Commission's requirement for prime and double seal treatment for this private easement road.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Payne if the waiver requested for this subdivision could be
distinguished from similar situations where the Planning Commission has required adherence to
the private road standards set out in the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Payne said he felt Miss
Nash had used as the basis for this waiver the peculiar topgraphic and geographic conditions
these p~arcels, the fact that the state road leading to this property is unpaved, the very steep
topography of the land though not of the road itself, and the small probability that the road
will ever be extended. Since the Subdivision Ordinance does mention peculiar topographic and
other physical conditions of property, then this waiver is readily distinguishable. Mrs.
Cooke asked if it would be appropriate to add language to this motion that the waiver is being
granted because of the peculiar conditions of the area. Mr. Payne said this is not necessary
providing the Board concurs with his summary of Miss Nash's comments.
At this time, Miss Nash's motion was seconded by Mr. Henley who stated he would like to
make sure the road is wide enough to be safe. Mr. Fisher said there will be additional
development of the lots on this road at some point and the road will eventually require paving.
He did not think these types of situations will ever improve unless the Board requires adheranc.
to County ordinances. Mr. Fisher pointed out that the parcels being divided have additional
division rights. Mr. Clark interjected his intent to waive those rights, making this a con-
dition of approval. Miss Nash amended her motion to include the wording: "There is to be no
further division of parcels one, two, three, four and five, as shown in orange on the map".
This amendment was seconded by Mr. Henley. Mr. Fisher restated the motion as: "The waiver of
the regulation requiring prime and double seal treatment for the private easment road is
granted, and an additional condition numbered l(f) be added reading, that there will be no.
further division of these five parcels. The other conditions as set down by the Planning
Commission which include conditions for private road provisions will remain." Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
November 9_~__1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
:431
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
(Note: The conditions as approved are set out below:)
fJ
Health Department written approval based on a soil scientist
report;
Compliance with all private road provisions except the require-
ment for prime and double seal treatment for the private easement
road, including County Engineer approval of road and drainage
plans from Route 684 to Parcel 4;
Issuance of an erosion control permit;
County Attorney's approval of homeowners' documents;
Virginia department of Highways and Transportation issuance of
a private street commercial entrance permit;
There is to be no further division of these five parcels.
Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing. Industrial Development Authority - Carben Corporation
Application for the Industrial Development Authority of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, to issue
industrial development revenue bonds to assist Carben Company in acquiring, constructing and
equipping a warehouse facility in Albemarle County. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
November 1 and November 8, 1983.)
Mr. Robert E. Glenn, an attorney with the firm of Glenn, Flippin, Feldmann & Darby, was
present to represent Carben Corporation. Mr. Glenn explained that Carben Corporation is a
wholly owned subsidiary of the Grand Piano and Furniture Company of Roanoke. The Grand Piano
and Furniture Company operates a number of retail furniture outlets throughout Virginia, two of
which are the M. C. Thomas Furniture Stores in Charlottesville. Carben Corporation is in the
process of building four new warehouses in Virginia. Carben has received approval from the
Industrial Development Authority of the City of Roanoke for $1,500,000 in industrial bonds to
finance these warehouses. Mr. Glenn said that Carben Corporation has a contract to purchase a
nine-acre tract located adjacent to Interstate 64, (formerly occupied by James River Supply
Company), and more recently the site of the Albemarle County Fair, for use as a warehouse. The
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors is being asked to approve two resolutions: a resolution
approving the issuance of the bonds by the Industrial Development Authority of the City of
Roanoke and another resolution approving the issuance of the bonds in accordance with Section
103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code. Mr. Glenn assured the Board members that this will not be
a retail operation, but there may possibly be one warehouse sale per year at this location. He
understands that under County zoning regulations, such use would require a special permit.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. No one rose to speak.
Mr. Fisher noted the following staff report from the Planning Department:
"Proposal: This proposal is to seek financing through the Industrial
Development Authority of the City of Roanoke to acquire, construct and
equip a furniture warehouse and addition for M. C. Thomas Furniture
Company.
Location: The furniture warehouse is proposed to be located on the
9.1 acre site of the 1982 Albemarle County Fairgrounds, property which
formerly housed James River Supply Company warehouse, near Willoughby
PUD.
Current Zoning: This property is currently zoned LI Light Industrial.
On June 15, 1977, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors approved
SP-77-25 in the name of James River Supply, Incorporated, for a
warehousing/wholesaleing use.
Staff Comment: Staff recently approved administratively an addition to
the existing warehouse facility because no new entrance or additional
parking was proposed or required. This proposed use is consistent with
the existing Light Industrial zoning and special use permit approval of
1977."
Miss Nash sa±d she felt this request from Carben Corporation was somewhat different than
approving industrial bonds to be issued by the Albemarle County Industrial Development Authorit
She wondered if the Board is bound by its own ordinances regarding approval. Mr. James
Bowling, Deputy County Attorney responded that there is no requirement that the conditions of
the IndUstrial Development Authority ordinance be met in so far as this bond issue is con-
cerned. Mr. Bowling explained that approval or disapproval of the request before the Board
will not affect the Board's ability to enforce the curren~ Industrial Development Authority
ordinance. The reason for this, is that Albemarle County is not being requested to finance the
bond issue; the bonds are to be issued through the Industrial Development Authority of the City
of Roanoke.
Mr. Lindstrom commented that the same standards should be applied to bond issues for other
localities as those in Albemarle County. Anything less, would be unfair to those individuals
being reviewed under the Albemarle County ordinance. In addition, he did nov wish to set a
precedent by having an applicant obtain financing through another Authority, when that appli-
cant could not receive approval in Albemarle County. Mr. Lindstrom said he is not comfortable
having another jurisdiction finance operations in Albemarle County especially if less scrutiny
is given to the request than would be given in Albemarle County. Mr. Lindstrom noted the
technical distinctions between Carben Corporation and Better Living, but said he would feel
uncomfortable granting approval to Carben Corporation in view of the denial to Better Living.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Bowling what would be the effect of the Board's denying Carben's reques
Mr. Bowling answered that a denial by this Board would end the matter in Albemarle County.
432:
November 9, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Glenn interjected that application for issuance of bonds by one jurisdiction to be
used in another jurisdiction requires some justification. In this case, Roanoke is the head-
quarters of Grand Piano Company. Without this substantial operation in Roanoke, Roanoke could
not take any action on this request.
Miss Nash pointed out that the types of facilities which may be considered for bonding in
Albemarle County, may be different from those outlined in Roanoke's ordinance. She asked Mr.
Bowling if the Board is bound by its statue or by the Roanoke statute. Mr. Bowling answered
that Albemarle's statute is not applicable in this issue. However, under the Federal statute,
the Board must give approval to any type of financing of facilities proposed to be located in
the County. Mr. ~Lindstrom felt that in the absence of any standards which are mandated differ-
ent from those in Albemarle County, it is incumbent upon the Board to review all proposed bond
issues under its own ordinance. Mr. Bowling said the Board may do so if that is the desire.
Mr. Agnor noted that the property to be used by Carben Corporation already contains
industrially zoned buildings. He asked if expansion of those buildings is in conflict with
Roanoke ordinance. He shared Mr. Lindstrom's concern that the application before the board
might be in conflict with t~e Albemarle County ordinance. Mr. Bowling reminded the Board that
s~me individuals have stretched the interpretation of the language in the County ordinance to
the limit. He did not know if the proposed facility can really be viewed as an industrial
facility. He felt it more appropriate to address this question to bond counsel. Mr. Agnor
asked if the limit ~n the County ordinance on the number of bonds ~hat~ean be issued, would
need to be increased. Mr. Bowling stated that his office agrees with the attorney for Carben
Corporation that it is not necessary to amend the County ordinance in any way. Mr. Glenn said
the Albemarle ordinance has been reviewed and although there are no specific references to
warehouses, he feels there are two items included which indicate Carben Corporation's facility
comes within the spirit of the ordinance. He referred to Section 2-49(b) on industrial plant
expansion, and Section 2-49(f) which addresses shopping or service facilities. Mr. Glenn said
the facility in question will certainly be a service facility since it will be serving the
existing furniture stores in Charlottesville. Mr. Fisher said that is a matter of interpre-.
ration. Mr. Henley commented that the warehouse will only be servicing its own stores and Mr.
Glenn acknowledged that this was so.
Miss Nash asked if a warehouse would be considered part of an industrial complex or if it
could~be considered a service. Mr. Lindstrom said a definition was needed for the word. Miss
Nash asked Mr. Bowling the meaning of the word "services" in the context of the ordinance. Mr
Bowling answered that the use would apply to a facility serving some other facilities in the
area. In addition, he felt it is also an expansion of an industrial facility since the land i
zoned for industrial purposes and Carben proposes to expand the existing facility. Mr.
Lindstrom proceeded to read the definition of "services" from the ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom
said he does not feel the application complies with the definition he just read. Mr. Fisher
asked if the ordinance specifically covers warehouses and Mr. Bowling answered no. Mr. Agnor
asked Mr. Tucker if warehouses are classified as industrial uses in the zoning ordinance.
M~ Tucker answered that this type of warehouse is an industrial classification.
Mr. Lindstrom said when the Board reviewed the Better Living issue it had discussed the
ability of the applicant to secure other types of financing. The Board did not think indus-
trial bond financing was necessary for that expansion. Mr. Lindstrom said that Carben Corpo-
ration has not presented any evidence to show that alternative financing has been considered.
Although the bonds would be issued by another Industrial Development Authority, he feels the
same standards should be applied to this request, the same as if the bond financing would be
from the Albemarle Industrial Development Authority. He concluded that to do otherwise would
be essentially treating similar issues in a different manner.
Mr. Henley said he does not think he would approve this issue if it were presented by the
Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority. Since it is not he will support the
resolution since he feels the proposed use would be good for a facility which has been standin~
idle for a long time.
Mr. Fisher stated that while he would like to see the property in question used once
again, he is opposed to the manner in which this application is to be financed. He said there
has been no statement that the applicant has attempted to secure conventional financing. Mr.
Fisher said if there are other resources available, those should be explored first rather than
issuing public financing. Mr. Fisher concluded that he personally sees no great compelling
public interest to be served by this use of tax exempt bonds.
Mrs. Cooke voiced the sentiments of Mr. Fisher saying the Board could certainly not do
more for an applicant from outside of the County than it would for its own citizen and she
cannot support the issue of bonds in this instance.
Mr. Glenn said the issue is not whether the purchase and development of this facility
be through conventional financing or industrial d~velopment financing because that question
not yet been explored. The only question, is whether approval for financing through an in-
dustrial development authority will be granted, and if not, then the question arises as to
whether the property will be purchased and developed at all. Mr. Fisher said he understands
this, but he feels the applicant should have attempted to find conventional financing first,
and if not able to do so, that would have presented a compelling case for approval of indu
bond financing.
Motion was made at this time by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Butler, to adopt a resolut~0n
concurring with the resolution adopted by the City of Roanoke Authority for the benefit of
Carben Corporation, to the extent required by Section 15.1-1378, to allow the City of Roanoke
Authority to finance the facilities described, and a resolution approving the issuance of the
bonds as required by Section 103(k) to permit the City of Roanoke Authority to assist in the
financing of the project. Roll was called and the motion failed by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler and Mr. Henley.
Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Linds~rom and Miss Nash.
:4 33
November 1 8~_~~ular Da~[ Meetin_~
Agenda Ztem No. 8. Set Meeting to Hear Plat Appeal.
As suggested by the Chairman, motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom,
to set up a meeting for November 16, 1983 at 4:00 P.M., in Meeting Room #7, to hear a plat
appeal on the Cason Fruit/Vegetable Specialty Food Store Site Plan. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 9. Report on Loss of Community Development Block Grant Funds for 1983.
Mr. Keith Mabe said that Albemarle County made two applications for Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) monies in 1983; a single request and a joint application with Louisa,
Fluvanna and Nelson Counties. Neither grant application was funded. These applications were
very similar to those filed the year before and had just missed being funded at that time.
Both grant applications received high marks the year before and with improvements suggested by
the State should have been eligible for funding. However, certain factors which received credi'
last year were not given points this year and it is Staff's belief that the evaluation was
somewhat arbitrary; i.e., impact on local objectives, reasonable costs, leveraging, etc.
Also, several factors in the evaluation criteria need review for possible policy changes;
i.e., community relative need weight, residential improvements priority, local contribution in
leveraging monies, and impact on objectives in strategy areas. Finally, some consideration
should be given as to the input gained by utilizing some sort of local official and citizen
advisory group with State staff in the evaluation of the Community Development Block Grants.
Mr. Mabe said he understands that the Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvement Corporation is
organizing a trip to Richmond to discuss some of their issues with Gene Dishner, Director of
the Department of Housing and Community Development. The Corporation is seeking two representa.
rives from each locality, a member of the Board of Supervisors and the Chief Executive Officer.
Also, representatives from the Virginia Senate and House of Delegates are being requested to
participate.
Mr. Olivieri echoed the sentiments of Mr. Mabe stating the AHIP staff has the same concern~
and questions raised in Mr. Mabe's presentation. Mr. Bill Brent said he would like to discuss
the matter of the Crozet collector s~stem at a later time. As no action was required by the
Board, none was taken at this time.
Agenda Item 11. Appointment: County Personnel Director.
Mr. Agnor referred to his memorandum dated November 3, 1983:
"This past June I advised you that Dr. Carole Hastings had been employed
by the School Board as Director of Personnel, and that it was intended
that a Personnel Department be created under her supervision to serve the
personnel needs of all county departments. Dr. Gutierrez had requested
that Dr. Hastings' assignment in her first year be focused on school
personnel matters, with other department personnel matters being phased
in next year.
Upon assuming her position in August and reviewing the staff and office
assignments, Dr. Hastings recommended that the Personnel Departmenv be
recognized for its full function now, rather than on a phased basis, and
Dr. Gutierrez and I have agreed with the merits of this recommendation.
Accordingly, it is my request that Dr. Hastings be appointed Director of
Personnel for the departments of general government effective immediately.
For FY 83-84, the budget for her department will be provided from existing
General Fund and School Fund appropriations. A job description of the
position for incorporation into the Personnel Plan will be provided for
your adoption in the near future."
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to accept the County Execu-
tive's recommendation to appoint Dr. Hastings as Director of Personnel for the General County
Government section effective immediately. Roll was called and the motion carried by the ·
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 10. Appropriation: Airport Improvements.
Mr. Agnor referred to the following memorandum from Mr. Ray B. Jones, Acting County
Executive, dated October 28, 1983:
"The 1983-84 Capital Improvement Program Budget approved by the Board
of Supervisors included the following five items for funding:
l)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Obstruction Removal $ 250
Sand Spreader/Sweeper 350
Quick Dash Vehicle 3,000
Automated Weather System 3,250
Air Carrier Apron and North Taxiway 20~000
TOTAL $26,850
434
November 9~ 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
~11 b~ #5 above have been appropriated.
Contracts were let by the Airport Board during meetings held in
September and October for the following:
l)
2)
3)
Taxiway overlay, apron and drainage work - $1.5 million
Phase I of Terminal Building - $372,000
South Hangar (12,000 sq. ft.) and 3,000 sq. ft. of
Office Space
The South Hangar/Office Space (item 3) was funded by a lease/purchase
arrangement with no local costs and the majority (90%) of the Overlay,
Apron, Drainage Work (item 1) was funded by a grant. The Overlay, Apron,
Drainage Work was contracted in phases so as to keep the Airport open
rather than to close it down for several months; however, this added
about $125,000 to the cost. The major portion of these added costs were
obtained from discretionary grant funds in late September by efforts of
the Airport Board. This all adds up to a need for the following
appropriation of $15,600 plus the $20,000 as follows:
FROM: Capital Improvement Fund
$ 35,600
TO:
Code 97000-975402 Phase I Terminal Bldg.- 15,600
Code 97000-975403 Apron and North Taxiway- 20~000
TOTAL $ 35,600"
Mr. Fisher said he and Mr. Jones had made a tour of the Airport facilities. He suggested
the other Board members might wish to consider a tour in order to see first hand how plans are
developing.
Motion was made by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Butler, to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $35,600.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated
from the Capital Improvement Fund and transferred to:
CODE
97000-975402
97000-975403
Phase I Terminal Building
Apron and North Taxiway
TOTAL
$15,600.00
$20,000.00
$35,600.00
Roll was called at this point and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Discussion: Road Names and House Numbers Along Routes 743 and 676.
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., read the following staff report:
"History and Staff Comment
For several years we have had various problems surrounding Hydraulic
Road with regard to house numbering assignment and road name designation.
The County's initial involvement came from a post office's request for
house numbers between Georgetown Road (where the City assigned numbers
stopped), northward on Route 743, and the Rivanna Reservoir where City
postal delivery ends. Once the newly-assigned County numbers went into
use, however, we found that several blocks of numbers had been duplicated.
In a joint meeting with County, City and postal representatives, we
decided to renumber this section of Hydraulic Road by extending the City
numbers.
The next problem arose when the Earlysville Post Office requested house
numbers for Route 743 and as many subdivisions as possible, since the post
office was splitting routes and wanted to use as many road names and house
numbers as possible. Since we can only assign numbers on named streets,
deeds were researched for parcels bordering Route 743. Several deeds of
property located between the Rivanna Reservoir and Route 643 had
descriptions referring to either "Hydraulic Road" or plats identifying
Route 743 as "Hydraulic Road". It was determined that since this area is
addressed and delivered out of Earlysville, Virginia, no duplication of any
addresses would be made using the County grid numbers.
Some citizens in the area are concerned that with a Hydraulic Road address,
most letters will be addressed to Charlottesville rather than to Eartysville.
If this happened, it would result in many letters being returned to the
sender.
Most recently we have received complaints regarding the naming of that
portion of Route 743 from the reservoir to Earlysville as Hydraulic Road.
Many have stated that Route 676 from the reservoir to Route 601 (Free Union
Road) is in fact Hydraulic Road. We have done further research which
substantiates these contentions. We, therefore, have conflicting documents
which verify both roads in question as Hydraulic Road.
435
November 9, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Recommendation
With the knowledge of the problems that exist and what appears to be the
accepted road names in the area, Staff recommends the following:
Remove the name Hydraulic Road from Route 743 north of its inter-
section with Route 676;
Apply the name Earlysville Road to Route 743 from Route 676 to the
intersection of Route 663 at Earlysville, and continue the name
further from Route 663 to Route 810 at Nortonsville (as shown on the
1932 state map);
Retain the County grid house numbers on Earlysville Road as they were
previously assigned on Hydraulic Road; and
For Route 676 from Route 743 to Route 601 designate the name Hydraulic
Road and extend the City assigned house numbers the entire length of
the named road."
Mr. William Rowan, who lives on Hydraulic Road, offered his support of the proposed name
changes. Motion was then of.fered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to accept the
recommendations of the Planning Staff as se~ out in items 1, 2, 3, and 4 above. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Appointments. No names were presented for appointment. Mr. Fisher
then suggested that interviews be held on December 14, 1983, for those people who have applied
for various vacancies.
Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Lindstrom said that during recent executive sessions held by the Board related to a
discussion of personnel matters, the Board has discussed ways to lessen the work load of the
County Executive. The Board is concerned with the enormity of the County Executive's responsi-
bility. The Board also has concerns regarding the current structure of the Building and
Inspections Department. The Board requested suggestions from the staff as to how these problem~
might be dealt with in the overall context of an adminstrative reorganization. Suggestions by
the staff have been discussed at length during several executive sessions. Mr. Lindstrom then
asked that the Board adopt a resolution requesting the staff to provide a formal proposal for
the reorganization of some aspects of general government administration, particularly creation
of two deputy county executive positions to aid Mr. Agnor in the administration of the County
and to create a separate position for Zoning Administrator. The staff report should include
how county government would be structured and what amendments would need to be made in the
County's Pay and Classification Plan. The report should also include an analysis of the
administrative impact of these changes, as well as financial implications. Mr. Lindstrom then
offered motion that the staff present the above requested report at the meeting scheduled for
November 16, 1983. This motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Fisher referred to draft legislation proposed for setting up of the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Airport Authority. Mr. Fisher suggested that prior to the General Assembly going
into session, the Board review the draft at the December 14, 1983 meeting. Mr..Agnor stated
that the Airport Board has not yet agreed to the contents of the draft to which Mr. Fisher
refers; therefore a final draft will be forthcoming. Mr. Agnor said the Airport Board plans to
invite both the City Council and the Board of Supervisors to tour the airport facility in the
near future.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Agnor the status regarding hiring a Chief of Police. Mr. Agnor
said he is ready to interview the five finalists and will be rs~"-~'~o~-m.~ke a recommendation to
the Board by the first of December. '-
Agenda Item No. 15. Adjournment.
meeting was adjourned at 4:13 P.M.
With no further business to come before the board, the