1980-10-15 adjOctober 15, 1980 (Adjourned from October 13, 1980)
338
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was
scheduled for 2:30 P.M. on October 15, 1980, in the Board Room of the County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from October 13, 1980.
Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr. (arriving at 2:40 P.M.), F. Anthony
Iachetta (arriving at 2:40 P.M.), C. Timothy Lindstrom (arriving at 2:36 P.M.) and Layton R.
McCann 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.
Mr. Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 2:41 P.M. by the Chairman,
Agenda Item No. 2.
from October 1, 1980)
ZMA-80-!6.
Thomas E. Worreti, Jr. (Farmington West RPN) (Deferred
Mr. Fisher said he would like to have those questions answered which were raised at
the October 1 public hearing. The first question concerned the status of all the right of
way involved in this application with respect to the rights of the general public to use
Broomley Road. The second question concerned Durrette Road and where it goes once it
exits the Worrell property and heads toward Ballard Road. Mr. St. John said he had not
done a complete title search, but it appears that Mr. Worrell owns a fee simple strip of
land from his property down to where Broomley Road touches the Dominick property. Mr. St. John
said this strip appears in three separate deeds that conveyed this strip to Farmington.
When Farmington conveyed the property in question to Mr. Worrell, they also conveyed this
strip as part of that conveyance. This strip is shown on the map along the frontage of
the Dominick property from Route 677 to the end of the red strip shown on the map as a
dedicated public right-of-way. Although this road is presently privately maintained, it
is dedicated to the public and the public has the right to use the road which is 50 feet
wide. From the Dominick property to the Sarah Miller property, it is a fee simple strip
50 feet wide, conveyed to Mr. Worrell. From that point northward, the strip, combined
~ith the existing dedicated strip, make a 60 foot right-of-way. Therefore, the southern
~art of the access is 50 feet wide and the northern part is 60 feet wide. Mr. St. John
said he was unable to find a correlation between this area and the Old Durrette Road. The
only reference to the Old Durrette Road is in a Supreme Court Case of Walter Cushman. Mr. Fish~
asked if it was Mr. St. John's impression that there is a full 50 feet of right-of-way all
the way from Route 677 to the Worrell property. Mr. St. John said yes. Mr~ Fisher said
the Board had an answer on the Old Durrette Road in the form of a map contained in Virginia
Reports, Volume 204, 1963-64 Cases. Dr. Iachetta said the map does not show exactly where
the road is located. Mr. St. John said the presumption is that the road is where it is
presently located on the ground.
Mr. Fisher said question No. 3 concerned the proposed homeowners association agreements
between Flordon property owners and Mr. Worrell to maintain all of Broomley Road. Mr. Fisher
noted that the Board had been furnished today a copy of a Flordon Residents' Maintenance
Agreement for roads within Flordon Subdivision and a copy of an agreement between Thomas E.
Worrell, Jr. and E. Gerald Tremblay, attorney for residents in Flordon Subdivision. B6th
papers are at this time unsigned.
An unidentified lady said this is not a polished document. There are 60 property
owners, which includes two people who are not Flordon residents, but who use Broomley
Road. Of these 60, three were out of town, two are non-residents, six are still considering
the agreement, one could not be contacted, and three said no. Forty-five of the property
owners have signed the agreement, and the three who would not have indicated that they
will still continue to pay.
Mr. Fisher said he questions whether such a document can be enforced in the future
when an owner decided he does not want to pay. The lady said it is assumed that when the
total description is included of the properties, that will give the homeowners association
the ability to put liens on the property. Mr. Fisher said he would ask Mr. St. John to
review these documents while the Board proceeded to other questions.
Question No. 4 was a request to Show the increased costs to maintain a road over the
past four years based on vehicle trips per day. Mr. J. Ashley Williams, Assistant County
Engineer, made determination of road designs but included only the Flordon Subdivision,
the proposed Worrell development, and existing lots that front Broomley Road. He did not
include any future development beyond or along Broomley Road, As concerns the cost of
maintenance of roads, Mr. Williams based his figures on costs for the entire County Secondary
System, which averaged $2700 per mile for the year ended June 30, 1980. Mr. Agnor said
that figure includes mowing of rights-of-way, snow ploughing, resurfacing and paving.
This figure reflects the amount of money the Highway Department was given to maintain the
roads, not necessarily what is needed to maintain the roads in top condition. The Highway
Department had no data available to determine the cost to maintain any given road based on
a fixed traffic count.
Mr. Fisher said question No.~ 5 was a request for an explanation of figures used to
obtain the required width of road (Broomley and Worreil Subdivision) if private roads are
allowed. Were they based on the present number of lots, include the proposed Worrell Sub-
division, or future development beyond the Worrell tract. Mr. Agnor said that Mr. Williams'
memo explains that only lots on Broomley Road, in Flordon, and in the proposed Worrell RPN
were considered in the traffic count. No consideration was given to any development
339
October 13, 1980)
beyond the Worrell property. Mr. Fisher said there are several large parcels on Broomley
Road that are not developed to maximum density, so this is a minimum requirement under
Subdivision Ordinance standards. Mr. Agnor said that was correct. Dr. Iachetta asked why
the proposal shows a road of lesser standard than would be required by the Subdivision
Ordinance. Mr. Tucker said the applicant explained at the public h'earing that this was
being requested in order not to disturb existing landscaping along Broomley Road. Dr. Iachetta
said if this request is approved, the roads will be even more substandard if more traffic
is allowed at some future time.
Mr. Fisher said another question has arisen concerning the bridge across the railroad
tracks by which Route 677 gains access to the Flordon area from Route 250. Mr. Bryon
Coburn, Assistant Resident Engineer, said on September 3, 1980; he had written a letter to
Ms. Mason Caperton in which he explained that it is the responsibility of the railroad
company to maintain the entire bridge on Route 677 to the width and strength which exists.
This is one of many bridges of the same classification which were on secondary roads when
those roads were taken into the Secondary System in 1932. By agreement, at anytime a
bridge is replaced and upgraded, it is the responsibility of the Highway Department to pay
90% of the cost, with the railroad paying 10%. The estimated cost for replacement of the
bridge is $200,000. Mr. Coburn said he had no local information which identifies any
specific problem at the intersection of Routes 677 and 250, or the intersection of Route 677
~th~h~ entrance to Flordon Subdivision, in reference to a question about accidents in
the area. Mr. Fisher said there is currently no allocation in the Six-Year Highway Plan
for improvement of this bridge, and unless some major diversion of funds is made, no work
will be done on this bridge until the latter part of this decade. Mr. Coburn said this
ownership/maintenance agreement is not unusual. Mr. Fisher said he was concerned because
not only will construction vehicles be using that bridge, but. he understands that school
buses also use the bridge. He does not see'that there will be anyway to solve the problem
in the foreseeable future with Highway funds shrinking.
Mr. Lindstorm said this RPN request for an RPN is for a lesser intensity that what is
permitted by right under existing zoning. He asked Mr. St. John if this request were
denied on the basis of the safety hazard of the. road and bridge, if that denial would be
meaningful. Mr. St. John said he felt it would, but the Board might also be faced with an
argument of discrimination. This RPN could be denied if it were the first application and
nothing had been built beyond the bridge at this time. Mr. Fisher said he thought that
the 33 lots proposed would be only a small percentage of the current use of that bridge.
He asked if the Highway Department had a traffic count for the bridge. Mr. Coburn said he
had nothing at the bridge, but beyond the bridge going toward Route 676, the count was 377
in 1978.
Mr. Fisher said he had received a map from Mr. David Wood yesterday, which also has
the name Watterson on it. The map shows a plan for a major new road to connect the Route 29
North part of the County to 1-64 at the Ivy interchange. Mr. Fisher said he did not think
this map was drawn by an engineer, but asked that it be placed on the wall so that it could
be considered as part of the access question. Mr. Watterson said he drew that map in
1973. He gave one copy to Mr. Laurence Brunton and asked him to take it to the authorities
to see if there was any interest. The Highway Department said there was no money available
for any road of such a design.
Mr. Fisher said the Board has to deal with the application as filed and before them
today. Miss Nash asked Mr. Coburn about the entrance from Route 677 onto Route 250. Mr. Cobur~
said there is unlimited sight distance to the west as you approach 250; to the east the
sight distance is about 600 feet. There is no turning lane at this point. Also, there
have been no reported accidents at this intersection in the last two years.
Mr. Henley said it seems ridiculous to him not to include the Old Durrette Road in
the road through the Worre!l property. Mr. St. John said Mr. Worrell's engineers have
done topographic studies, and evidently figured that for the volume of traffic from this
RPN, the roads they have designed are better than using the Old Durrette Road. Also, the
Old Durrette Road serves other properties behind the Worrell property, and those people
have a right to continue to use that road. Mr. St. John said he feels it is a mistake to
mix the issue of the Old Durrette Road and the other roads because there is no legal
connection between t~he two. Mr. Henley said he is bothered because it does not seem to be
good planning. This is an opportunity to do something better and he feels that now is the
time to do it. Mr. St. John said he feels it is the decision of Mr. Worrell and his
engineers as to the best placement of the roads in this RPN. Dr. Iachetta said if private
roads are created on the Worrell property, that still leaves the Durrette right-of-way
where it noW lies. Mr. St. John said the parties involved could get together and decide
to abandon the Durrette right-of-way, and Mr. Worrell could give access over the new road.
However, if they do not voluntarily do that, unless the County's engineers can clearly
state that Mr. Worreli's engineers did not know what they were doing, the Board is not
justified in taking the position that this should be done. Furthermore, the County does
not have the power to order this developer to let other people have access over any private
road system he creates. Miss Nash asked if the applicant should not Show the Old Durrette
Road on the development plans. Mr. St. John said it would be foolish of him not to show
the road because he cannot close the road. Also, if not shown, there is a danger that
someone will buy a lot and by mistake build a house in the middle of that roadway. Mr. Dennis
Rooker said the Old Durrette Road is shown on the subdivision plat. Miss Nash asked about
Broomley Road out toward Route 677. Mr. Max Evans explained the varying widths and
rights-of,way as set out in the minutes of October t. Mr. Fisher said he understands that
this strip is owned outright by Mr. Worrell, so if it is not dedicated to public use, that
part of the road could not be used by any other citizen except by agreement with Mr. Worrel!
or his successors. Mr. St. John said that was not entirely correct since the Old Durrette
roadway lies partly in this new roadbed somewhere.
October 15, 1~80 (Adjourned from October 13, 1980)
340
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John about the drafted homeowners agreements. Mr. St. John
said he had read them, but had not given them a full review, however, he understands that
the documents handed in today are not the final agreements. Actually, this is just an
agreement to sign an agreement, and he did not see any way to force existing residents of
Flordon to sign the agreement, but the residents who do sign will be bound by the agreement
and he assumes that the agreement Will run with the land. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the
County could condition approval of this application to a certain number of lots or dwelling
units that could be served by the private road. Mr. St. John said no; future boards could
amend what is before the Board today. Mr. Lindstrom asked if approval could be conditioned
so that there could be no further lots or dwelling units accessing the private roads
without some formal approval from the County. Mr. St. ~John said at the time such a request
for additional lots or dwelling units were made, the County would have the power to require
that the roads be brought to State standards.
Mr. Fisher said the public hearing on. this request was closed on 0otober 1, but the
problem is so complicated that he would welcome new information. He asked if there was
anything new from the planning staff. Mr. Tucker said no. He then asked if there was
anything new from the Highway Department. Mr. Coburn said no. Mr. Fisher asked if the
applicant had anything new to add. Mr. Max Evans said he had talked with the Ednam Forest
iHomeowners Association and ascertained that each household contributes $112 per year
itoward maintenance of roads. About $3,000 is spent each year on maintenance, so they have
ibuilt up about $30,000 which has not been spent. Mr. Coburn said the figures he supplied
~to Mr. Ashley Williams are average figures. For any period of time, maintenance figures
iwould be less, but every five to seven years when roads need resurfacing, there would be
iquite a large bill.
Mr. Fisher then asked for comments from interested parties present. Mr. Chauncey
Hutter said he was shocked when it was reported that it cost $2700 per mile for maintenance.
The people in Flordon who presently contribute to a road fund have been able to build BP a
balance and resurface major sections and been able to do so for the last ten years.
Except for Broomley Road, all the other roads are in excellent shape at this time.
An unidentified lady said 75% of the residents have signed the agreement and she
anticipated that 80% will sign.
Mr. Kendrick Dure said he would like to ask Mr. St. John about an issue he raised in
an addendum to his memo of October 1, namely:
"Should the Old Durette Road right-of-way remain unaltered, we request
1. The right-of-way be shown on the subdivision plat as 15 feet in width
and platted thereon pursuant to Code Section 15-52(d);
2. Provisions of County Code Section 18-30 be complied with, to-wit:
'When a new subdivision abuts one side of an existing or platted street,
the subdivider shall dedicate at least one-half the right-of-way necessary
to make such street comply with the minimum width fixed for the same by
this chapter.'
3. Section 3-4 of the Code be complied with concerning 50 foot setback requirements
be met and complied with, with respect to the Durrette Road."
Mr. Fisher said evidently there are a number of people present from Flordon who still
want to have privately maintained roads. Several persons nodded approval. He then asked
for the County Attorney to speak. Mr. St. John said the persons who now have a right to
use the Durrette Road have a right to use the land right up to the roadbed as long as they
do not obstruct egress and ingress over the road.
Mr. Fisher said the land in question lies in Samuel Miller District. There are a lot
of conflicting views as to what should be done. He asked that the record show that he has
driven over all the roads in question, to the parcel that is the subject of this application,
through Farmington, down Brook Road, out its extension across the brook, and into another
parcel of land on the west side of the brook. He said he likes the proposal for the use
of the land, but the major problem is access to the property. There is a creek on one
side, a railroad on the other and subdivisions with private roads on both sides. The
property is essentially landlocked except for the dedication of a 50 foot right-of-way
when Flordon was built. General county laws require that there be a public road to serve
any new development of this size and any waiver of that is a reduction of county development
standards. In this case, the request is to have not only internal private roads, but that
access to the development also be privately maintained. Homeowners in Flordon agree with
the request for private access and have requested that the County find a way to grant the
request. Both the applicant and the Flordon homeowners ask that the County reduce its
standards for private roads below the minimums required. Mr. Fisher said from viewing the
roads, it seems that Broomley Road is the only reasonable main access to the property.
Also the applicant has a right-of-way and/or fee simple ownership form Route 677 to this
property. If the new road is built as a private road, the main question is how will it be
maintained. Mr. Fisher said if the Board allows the private roads, the roads should be
built to full county standards with no waiver of private road standards; there should be
rockbound legal provisions to insure continued maintenance of the roads; and there should
be some provision for expansion of the agreement to new owners' in the area. Mr. Fisher
said he drafted a revised Condition #3 for the Board members to look at, and read the
following:
A. Internal Roads:
Private roads~ shall be constructed in compliance with Section i8-36 of the
Subdivision Ordinance.'
341
October 15, 1980 (Adjourned frOm October 13, 1980)
B. Access Road:
Broomley Road between its intersection with Route 677 and subject property
shall be improved to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
standards and brought into the state secondary road system; provided,
however, that a private road meeting all standards of Section 18-36 of the
Subdivision Ordinance for projected traffic volume will be permitted if and
only if there is a separate approval by the Board of Supervisors of permanent
and binding legal instruments to assure maintenance of this access road in
perpetuity. Such legal instruments shall include provisions designed to
allow future road users to become parties to the agreement with full respon-
sibilities for pro rata costs of maintenance and improvements, if necessary.
No building permits shall be issued for any dwelling in this RPN prior to
either (1) County Engineer's acceptance of a construction bond for a state
standard road; or (2) board of supervisors approval of legal instruments for
maintenance of a private road and county engineer's approval of private road
plans.
C. Access to Brook Road (Farmington):
No vehicular access shall be permitted between subject RPN and Brook Road in
Farmington.
Dr. Iachetta asked if Mr. Fisher meant that Broomley Road should be brought up to
state standards and taken into the state system. Mr. Fisher said not unless the homeowners
cannot work out an agreement which the Board feels will be binding for maintenance of the
private roads. Dr. Iachetta said he does not think there is anything that can be done in
perpetuity, legal language notwithstanding. Mr. McCann noted that the Subdivision Ordinance
requires that a road be built to state standards when it serves 35 residences, whether it
is privately maintained or not. Dr. Iachetta said he did not see the logic of requiring
that the road be brought to standard if it is not to be taken into the state system. Mr. McCan
said he hates to waive the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. Lindstrom said he has been out a number of times and Broomley Road goes through a
subdivision that has been in existen~:~: :for a number of years. He does not like waivers,
but feels there are unique circumstances involved in this case. Mr. Lindstrom said he
will not vote to require a state road because of the detriment that construction of such a
road would cause to the character of the neighborhood. Also, such a requirement would
establish a major road in an area that is not slated for intensive development in the
Comprehensive Plan or on the Zoning Map. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels no responsibility to
the people who own property behind the Worrell tract, but he is concerned that the roads
not be opened to stimulate development in a part of the County which has been determined
to be rural and which should remain rural. Although he would like to encourage the people
involved to have an ironbound maintenance agreement, he will not hold that out as a threat
that he will ever vote for a state road. He shares the concern about the access to Brook
Road and feels that should be a cul-de-sac on the Farmington side. Mr. Lindstrom said he
does not believe there is any' way to have that road and not open up Farmington to through
traffic. Mr. Lindstrom said he also cannot support having the road brought to the County's
private road standards. He does accept the County Engineer's recommendation that there is
some basis in this instance to accept what has been proposed by the developer. Mr. Lindstrom
said he feels this is a unique situation and the Board will not see more such cases. He
said it is within the Board's authority to condition the approval so as to limit access
over the roads that will be in the private section to insure that the level of traffic
will not be increased on those roads without further board review and he will make this
suggestion after further discussion to replace Condition #9 recommended by the Planning
Commission.
Dr. Iachetta said he felt there would be a lot of trouble in the future if Mr. Lindstrom
sticks with this viewpoint. Mr. McCann agreed that this is a unique situation, but anytime
a road is to serve 35 lots, a state standard road must be built. If the ordinance is
waived in this instance, what will the Board do with the next such request. Miss Nash did
not feel the ordinance should be waived. She felt that even if it is to be a privately
maintained road, it should be brought up to standard. She supported Mr. Fisher's recommended
condition #3 with an addition to the wording that the Old Durrette Road be shown on the
plat as being 15 feet in width.
Dr. Iachetta asked if the land on the east side of Broomley Road developed, if the
County would have to allow a connection to the dedicated part of Broomley Road. Mr. Tucker
said he felt the County would have to allow such a connection, and the Board would then be
in the same position as in this instance. Dr. Iachetta said the problem with the recommended
condition is that it assumes that the vacant properties along Broomley Road will not
develop. But, there is a possibility of generating more traffic at some time in the
future. Mr. Hutter said there are only two lots on the west side of Broomley Road that
are undeveloped. On the east side, there is 'Broomley Farm which is currently for sale.
Dr. Iachetta said he feels that farm will be subdivided at some time in the future irregard!ess
of what is shown in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lindstrom said if that happens, the road
would obviously have to be upgraded at that time. Mr. Fisher said his condition, except
for the question of waiving county road standards, proposes that the applicant and the
Flordon property owners be given an opportunity to work out an agreement for permanent
maintenance of the road. Mr. Lindstrom said he has serious problems with waiving private
road standards in existing established subdivisions, but he feels the problem is being
overstated in this case. A new road is not being created to serve other than the Worrell
tract. The proposal before the Board is for 33 lots, but the zoning would allow 186 lots,
which is a substantial reduction. Miss Nash said in the case of Broomley Road, it is not
the existing subdivision, but the new subdivision that is causing the difficulty. Mr. Lindstro]
pointed out that Broomley Road goes through the front yards of houses that will be significantl
October 15,'1980 (Adjourned from October 13., 1980)
342
changed by a development which is far below the actual density to which it could be developed.
Requiring that Broomley Road meet requirements of the private road ordinance will not
solve problems which will occur from future development. Any additional standards imposed
now will not have any significant meaning in the future, but will cause significant detriment
to all people involved. Mr. McCann said Broomley Road will serve almost double the 35
vehicle trips which require that the road be brought to state standards. He said that
although it probably is not necessary in this case, he still cannot agree to waive the
ordinance.
Mr. Fisher asked that the Board try to solve the problem of Broomley Road. Mr. McCann
said he liked the Planning Commission's recommendation better than Mr. Fisher's. Mr. Lindstrom
then offered motion to approve Condition #3 reading: "County Engineer approval of improvements
to Broomley Road as proposed by the developer, and necessary waiver of Section 18-36,
Private Road Ordinance", as suggested by the County Engineer. Mr. Fisher said he did not
remember that the County Engineer suggested a waiver. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board must
assess the kind of change in character that would occur if Broomley Road were widened.
Mr. Fisher asked for a second to the motion. There being none, the motion was ruled dead.
Mr. Rooker asked to be heard for the applicant. Mr. Fisher said the public hearing
had been closed. Mr. McCann asked if the Board could refuse to allow access between the
Worrell property and Brook Road as proposed by Mr. Fisher's condition #3. Mr.' Fisher
~sked that this be discussed as a separate issue.
Dr. Iachetta then read into the record memorandum from J. Ashley Williams, Assistant
~ounty Engineer, dated September 12, 1980:
"A general widening improvement diagram has been received for Broomley Road
from Max Evans. In reviewing this plan, I am first going to present the pave-
ment designs for the privat~ roads as required by the Land Subdivision Ordinance.
Because of the 33 lots that are proposed for Farmington West, the entire length
of Broomley Road will be required to be built to state highway standards with
respect to width of pavement and the typical section. More particularly,
Broomley Road from the intersection with State Route 677 to Flordon Drive would
be required to be 22 feet wide and have a Category IV base and pavement design.
From Flordon Drive to Tanglewood Drive, Broomley Road would be required to be
22 feet wide and have a Category III base and pavement design. The remainder
of Broomley Road to Farmington West would be required to be 20 feet wide and
have a Category II base and pavement design.
The plan that Mr. Evans presented shows a general 18-20 foot pavement throughout.
Because of the already established neighborhood and the destruction of trees and
other vegetation, it could be possible to reduce the private road standards to
accommodate this situation. I do feel that every effort should be made to comply
with the requirements as much as possible. The safety aspects of this road~are
of vital concern when the traffic count my reach up to 500 cars per day at ~some
locations."
Dr. Iachetta said that seems to be a reluctant endorsement of reduction in standards.
Miss Nash then offered motion that'the Board adopt as Condition #3, Mr. Fisher's
proposal for 3A and 3B. Mr. Henley said Broomley Road has been before the Board.a number
of times. He-has not been able to come up with a~better condition, so would second the
motion.
Dr. Iachetta said it seems that the way the condition is worded, it is mandatory for
the road to be a state standard road, because getting everyone who lives along the road
sign an ironclad agreement would be a major miracle. Mr. Fisher said he wanted to give
the property owners an opportunity to proceed with the agreements, since assurances had
been given that the agreements will be worked out.
Mr. Rooker asked if a question could be asked with respect to Mr. Fisher's proposal.
Mr. Fisher consented. Mr. Evans said if the traffic counts will automatically make this a
state standard road, there is no need for the people in Flordon to be involved with an
agreement about maintenance. Mr. Fisher said the condition states that "...a private road
meeting all standards of Section 18-36 of the Subdivision Ordinance for projected traffic
volume will be permitted if .... ". Mr. Evans said that would make this a state stardard
road. Dr. Iachetta pointed out that Section 18-36 allows a deviation from horizontal and
vertical curvature. Mr. Evans said the road could not economically be made two to six
feet wider because of the additional grading required. Mr. Fisher said these are the
minimum requirements of the County's private road ordinance which any property owner would
be required to meet. Mr. Fisher said he has never voted to waive any road standards for
any applicant. Mr. Evans said he had computed the 33 lots, plus several users beyond the
Worrell property, and that number fell within requirements of the private road ordinance.
The applicant agreed to build the road within the development to the required standard and
also to improve the existing road out to the public road to the same standard. If the
~eople along Broomley Road want additional improvements, he feels that they should have
~etitioned the Board for same. Actually, he said, the people in Flordon want the road
proposed by the applicant. Dr. Iachetta said the existing road is presently privately
maintained. It is already being used by more than 35 dwelling units, the number at which
the road would be required to be built to state standards, so the only variation allowed
would be those allowed in Section 18-36. Mr. Evans said those variations will not help
with this particular road because of the topography and the number of large trees along
the road that would be removed, plus one existing house which sets very close to Broomley
Road.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned about the removal of trees~ and the chaos and
confusion that would result from meeting standards. He said it is within the Board's
ability to protect existing property owners and he could not recall another situation
where improvement of a road would so impact an existing neighborhood. Mr. Henley said he
could go along with Mr. Lindstrom if the Old Durrette Road were included in this new road
343
October 15, 1980 (Adjourned from October 13, 1980)
and access given to properties behind the Worrell property. Mr. Lindstrom said the Old
Durrette Road was established a long time ago. The question was taken to the State
Supreme Court and a road.for development was requested to be established. The Supreme
Court said there was no legal basis on which to make such a ruling. Mr. Lindstrom said he
does not feel the Board will be taking anything from Mr. Watterson or Mr. Dure that they
presently have. In fact, he felt the Board would be giving them something which the
courts had refused to grant, and it would be at the expense of people who had no reason to
believe this would ever happen. Dr. Iachetta did not feel the Board was obliged to grant
anything to the Watterson and Dure properties that they do not presently have.
Mr. Lindstrom said he could accept the motion if the first sentence in part "B" read:
"... provided, however, that a private road as proposed by the developer will be permitted
if .... "
Mr. St. John said that some of the trees which would have to be cut down to upgrade
this road are on private property adjacent to the road. Mr. Rooker said he would like to
clarify one point. When Flordon was built and the road constructed, Dr. Hurt did not
follow the dedicated strip in laying the road,~ therefore, the road is not within the
dedicated right-of-way since people built their homes depending on where they saw the
road. Mr. Evans said a helicopter would be needed to get to some houses if the hill were
cut down.
Mr. Lindstrom asked that the Board keep in mind that this RPN is for only one-f~urth
of the density permitted by right. Mr. Fisher Said that argument was no good because if
the property were developed to maximum density, an even bigger road would be required.
Mr. Rooker said that every interested person using that road is in support of the waiver.
Dr. Iachetta suggested that the Board members make a site visit of Broomley Road.
Mr. Fisher said unless the Board compared the existing road to what would be required
under ~state standards, it wbuld not be a proper comParison. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that
the applicant stake the road showing the standard he has requested and alsb the way the
private roa~ ordinance requires.
Miss'Nash said she was willing to defer action on her motion until the Board had made
such a site visit, and then offered motion to defer action until October 22, 1980, at 3:00
P.M. The motion was s~conded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
N~S:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 3. The Board recessed at 4:40 P.M. and reconvened at 4:55 P.M.
offered motion to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel matters. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. McCann.
The Board reconvened into open session at 5:30 P.M. and immediately adjourned.
Dr. Iache
ta